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:	Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:50:17 +0100
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Hi David,

> > Lets phrase this in better words as Valdis pointed out: You can't
> > distribute an application (binary or source form) under anything else
> > than GPL if it uses a GPL library.
> 
> This simply cannot be correct. The only way it could be true is if the work
> was a derivative work of a GPL'd work. There is no other way it could become
> subject to the GPL.
> 
> So this argument reduces to -- any work that uses a library is a derivative
> work of that library. But this is clearly wrong. For work X to be a
> derivative work of work Y, it must contain substantial protected expression
> from work Y, but an application need not have any expression from the
> libraries it uses.
> 
> > It makes no difference if you
> > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> 
> If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being used
> in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor can you
> violate, the GPL simply by using a work in its ordinary intended way.
> 
> If the application contains insufficient copyrightable expression from the
> library to be considered a derivative work (and purely functional things do
> not count), then it cannot be a derivative work. The library is not being
> copied or distributed. So how can its copyright be infringed?

go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then
ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only
form without making the source code available (according to the GPL).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

Regards

Marcel


--
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/