IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New They aren't idiots after all
They think that Linux Kernel Modules are a way to work around the GPL.

If they think that, then they should read Linus Torvalds' opinions on that exact topic over the years at [link|http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html|http://linuxmafia.co...rnel-modules.html] and then talk to a good copyright lawyer. Unless they are sure that a judge would agree that their work is not a derivative under copyright of the Linux kernel, they are not safe.

Cheers,
Ben

UPDATE: I went past the fluff article to their white paper which links to their loadable kernel module article at [link|http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/lkm.html|http://www.wasabisys....com/gpl/lkm.html]. That gets it right. Being a loadable kernel module in no way protects you from the requirements of the GPL.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Expand Edited by ben_tilly Feb. 22, 2006, 10:29:54 AM EST
New Linus agrees with them (if I read correctly)
If somebody wants to port his SVR4 driver to Linux but doesn't want to GPL it, I feel that he should have the right to do that, using modules. After all, the driver wasn't actually derived from Linux itself: it's a real driver in its own right, so I don't feel that I have the moral right to force him to switch copyrights.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Read the following opinions and you'll see a different story
Linus' position is that the GPL applies if your code is a derivative under copyright law of the Linux kernel, and not otherwise.

The original loadable kernel module interface circa the mid-90's was extremely restrictive and generic. (You had access to very little, and that little was vanilla you'd expect from any Unix.) So restrictive that if that was all you needed from the Linux kernel, you'd pretty much proved that you weren't borrowing from the Linux design in any way. So if you had a driver for another OS, and you ported it over to use that interface, Linus thought you had a pretty good case for saying that you weren't a derivative under copyright. Which means that the GPL didn't apply to you.

Since then the interface has become a lot more extended, as people realized that it is nice to modularize the Linux kernel itself. And a lot of code has been developed against the Linux kernel with no prior history. If you code something fresh to the current API, then Linus has a very good case that your code is derivative of Linux, and the GPL applies to you. He hasn't actually litigated any such cases, but he and many other developers have standing to do so, and there are many companies that they can litigate against.

A lot of people are only aware of his 1995 pronouncements on the topic and think that there is some sort of "loadable kernel module exception". They're wrong and there isn't. Right back to the original pronouncement his position has been reasonably consistent: if you're a derivative under copyright, the GPL applies to you. Period. If you're not a derivative under copyright, it doesn't.

Tying into their other point, all that it takes is one kernel developer deciding to sue one particularly egregious company that thinks they can do an end-run around the GPL using loadable kernel modules, and suddenly every company who is trying to avoid the GPL that way may wake up to the fact that they have Sarbanes-Oxley violations.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Dind.. Ding... Ding!!!!
We have a winnah.

Two big fat, "Whoop-Whoop"s to the man in the Perl-escent Clothes.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
Freedom is not FREE.
Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars?
SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0;

0 rows returned.
     Sarbanes-Oxley may up the ante for GPL violations - (folkert) - (4)
         They aren't idiots after all - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Linus agrees with them (if I read correctly) - (bepatient) - (2)
                 Read the following opinions and you'll see a different story - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     Dind.. Ding... Ding!!!! - (folkert)

Wie geht es Ihnen?
144 ms