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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:38:39 -0800
From:	"v j" <vj.linux@...il.com>
To:	"Lee Revell" <rlrevell@...-job.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

No its not. It wasn't common knowledge 3 years ago when we chose Linux
as an embedded platform. If it indeed is common knowledge that
loadable modules in Linux have to be open-source then it is very
probable that we wouldn't have chosen Linux as the platform of choice.
If this indeed is the case and is common knowledge, then I predict
that Linux will soon drop in popularity as the OS of choice in
embedded systems.

On 2/14/07, Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com> wrote:
> Um... it's been common knowledge for years that the legal status of
> non-GPL kernel modules is an open issue.  Specifically, whether a
> device driver written for the Linux kernel is a derived work of the
> kernel.  Sounds like you didn't do your homework 3 years ago.
>
> Why did you assume that linking a non-GPL module into the GPL Linux
> kernel was legal?  You have read the GPL right?
>
> Lee
>
> On 2/15/07, v j <vj.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> > This is in reference to the following thread:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
> >
> > I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
> > popular in the embedded space. We (an embedded vendor) chose Linux 3
> > years back because of its lack of royalty model, robustness and
> > availability of infinite number of open-source tools.
> >
> > We recently decided to move to Linux 2.6 for our next product, mainly
> > because Linux has worked so well for us in the past, and we would like
> > to move up to keep up with the latest and greatest.
> >
> > However in moving to  2.6, we noticed a number of alarming things.
> > Porting drivers over from devfs to udev, though easy raised a number
> > of alarming issues. Driver's no longer could dynamically allocate
> > their MAJOR/MINOR numbers. Doing so would mean they would have to use
> > sysfs. However it seems that sysfs (and the class_ interface) is only
> > available to GPL modules. This is very concerning. The drivers which
> > we have written over the last three years are suddenly under threat.
> > We don't mind statically assigning MAJOR/MINOR numbers to our drivers.
> > We can do this and modify our user space applications too.
> >
> > However we have a worrying trend here. If at some point it becomes
> > illegal to load our modules into the linux kernel, then it is
> > unacceptable to us. We would have been better off choosing VxWorks or
> > OSE 3 years ago when we made an OS choice. The fact that Linux is
> > becoming more and more closed is very very alarming.
> >
> > vj.
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
-
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/