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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:52:22 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	v j <vj.linux@...il.com>
Cc:	Trent Waddington <trent.waddington@...il.com>,
	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, 15 Feb 2007 22:25:12 PST, v j said:
> > It's written in black and white, in the license.
> 
> Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
> the Kernel.

Nobody can point you there, because it doesn't say that anywhere.

What you do to *your* kernel is *your* business.

The question is what the code you *distribute* to *other* people does. It's
perfectly legal to load proprietary modules into the kernel.  The open question
is whether you're allowed to ship a proprietary module to somebody else.

And that will depend in *great* detail on *exactly* what your module does,
what code it uses, and how it does it.  As others have pointed out, NVidia
and ATI think they're in an OK spot with the way *they* do *their* module,
while many embedded companies, shipping a much different product, have almost
unanimously given in rather than risk a court fight about the GPL.

Of course, most companies will cave in and license rather than fight a
patent troll as well - so you *really* need to discuss *your* case with
a clueful lawyer.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped