[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17876.3862.261014.44098@notabene.brown>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:43:18 +1100
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: "v j" <vj.linux@...il.com>
Cc: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
"Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Wednesday February 14, vj.linux@...il.com wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
> > We seem to have different definitions of open and closed.
>
> Open = 3rd party Linux drivers can be loaded. Closed = No third party
> Linux drivers can be loaded.
Loading a driver is not at issue. Anyone may load a driver.
The issue is when you *distribute* a driver.
If that driver is a derived work or the Linux kernel, then you may
only distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2, which essentially
means that you make the source code available - under the GPLv2 - to
everyone you give the driver to.
How do you know if the driver is a derived work?
Well, if it uses POSIX syscalls only, it isn't. (You can write USB
drivers in user-space which do this).
If it uses symbols exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, then the author of the
code which provides those symbols thinks that the driver is a derived
work.
If it uses EXPORT_SYMBOL symbols, then it is less clear what people
believe, though there are certainly some who believe it will still
be a derived work.
But of course the person who's opinion really counts is the judge. So
you need to get legal advice.
NeilBrown
-
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