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]

Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:27:11 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
CC:	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:
> Hi David,
>
>   
>>>>> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
>>>>> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
>>>>> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
>>>>> infringement if the copyright holder thinks what you have is derived
>>>>> work.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Yes I can, if the proprietary code is not linked with GPL code (and the 
>>>> proprietary code is original).  Loadable modules are not linked.  This is a 
>>>> very clear-cut case.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> that is not clear-cut case. You link at run-time. Otherwise the module
>>> would do nothing.
>>>       
>> That's why it's allowed.  The module isn't linked when it's distributed,
>> and the author doesn't do or cause the linking; the user does.  And the
>> user never distributes in the linked state.  Distribution is key to GPL.
>>     
>
> so how do you build this module that is not linked without using the
> Linux kernel.
You could hand code in assembler, using Microsoft's assembler under
Windows.  You could compile from C, using GCC on FreeBSD.  But that's
immaterial.  A module which is an original, non-derivative work, is,
well, original and non-derivative.  Do you say that it must be
otherwise?  Why would that be?
--
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/