linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

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: <47AB0B67.7060103@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:15:11 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
>>> the GPL.
>>>       
>> Completely wrong.  However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it 
>> would need to be licensed under GPL.  This means that a driver can be 
>> written and distributed as a module under any licence, proprietary or 
>> otherwise, presumably with the restriction that it may NOT be built-in. 
>>     
>
> how to do you wanna write a new original Linux driver (modular or
> built-in) without creating derivative work.
>From what does it derive?  Given a new, original work, created from
scratch, could you point to another work, better yet show lines of code
in common?



>>> You driver was meant to be
>>> running as Linux kernel module and thus it is derivative work.
>>>       
>> It is precisely the fact that it is a loadable module, and does not form 
>> part of the kernel, that removes the requirement to distribute it under GPL. 
>>     
>
> That is such a nonsense. Stop distributing FUD and start talking to a
> lawyer. You are clearly under some weird impression what the GPL means
> and what it implies.
>   

It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL.  What I am doing is
telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said.

> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
> license or don't use this symbol at all.
>   
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is not a licence.  Only a licence is a licence.

> If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you link at runtime) then
> you are in violation of the GPL license. We can't make it much clearer.
>   
Your desire is clear, but the facts are bound to disappoint you.

--
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/