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]

Message-Id: <1171617170.5835.101.camel@frg-rhel40-em64t-03>
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:12:50 +0100
From:	Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
To:	v j <vj.linux@...il.com>
Cc:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>,
	Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>,
	Miguel Ojeda <maxextreme@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 21:48 -0800, v j wrote:
> We only get crap because no one here yet knows how to interpret
> proprietary modules loaded into the kernel.

The proprietary modules where only a tiny wrapper is linux-specific and
the rest is cross-platform are in a grey area, yes.
But your modules, written specifically for linux but distributed as
binary-only, are specifically what the people choosing the GPL want to
avoid. They are a derivative work, and are, as such, illegal under the
GPL.

As stated by multiple other people, please consult a lawyer if you want
to be nasty. Or just play by the rules.

	Xav

-
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/