| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:00:27 +0100
From: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Sunday 18 February 2007 00:55, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Or they could run:
> find . -type f -exec
perl -i.bak -pe 's/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/g'
> and be done with it. Or even just MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in their
> module -- that's not "lying about the module license", it's "doing the
> minimum necessary in order to interoperate efficiently with the
> kernel". Atari v. Nintendo is still good law, but only to the
> extent that it does not conflict with Lexmark, which now has the seal
> of Supreme Court approval. And (IMHO, IANAL) if writing
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") is obviously the only remotely efficient way to
> achieve the goal of interoperation with the kernels that people
> already have on their systems
Except that this is not about a driver that is supposed to interoperated
with the kernels people already have on their systems. This is about
shipping new (embedded) systems with a modified (if you go the s/_GPL//g
route, even more so) Linux kernel, and distribution a modified kernel *has*
to comply with the GPL, since this is *exactly* what the GPL is about:
redistribution of modified copies of the work.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists