linux-kernel - Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:42:12 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>
Cc:	davids@...master.com, v j <vj.linux@...il.com>,
	trent.waddington@...il.com,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

Hi!

> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
> readable.
> 
> I've drafted summaries from a couple of different angles since VJ
> requested a "translation into English", and I think this is the most
> coherent (and least foaming-at-the-mouth) I've crafted yet.  It was
> written as an answer to a private query to this effect:  "I write a
> POP server and release it under the GPL.  The Evil Linker adds some
> hooks to my code, calls those hooks (along some of the existing ones)
> from his newly developed program, and only provides recipients of the
> binaries with source code for the modified POP server.  His code
> depends on, and only works with, this modified version of my POP
> server.  Doesn't he have to GPL his whole product, because he's
> combined his work with mine?"
> 
> This is a fundamental misconception.  A <<product>> is not a "work

Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds
two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he
can get away with that.

But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
<pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h> from his
binary-only part?

I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what
embedded people are doing; I do not think they are creating their own
headers or their own inline functions where headers contain them.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/