Re: [Hampshire] No more non-GPL Linux kernel modules?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:33:27 +0000 (+0000), Alex wrote:
> He's right in my opinion. If the work is not derived from FOSS, why
> should
[snip]

Whilst overall, I agree with Linus, I prefer the GPL to the BSD
license because it forces people to share code that they build on
other people's work. This leads to this question:

If someone produces an embedded device - let's say a PVR for sake of
argument and then writes (without using any GPL code) a binary-only
kernel module to talk to their digital tuner, I think you can cut it
both ways:

a) they are building on top of the linux kernel and if you feel as I
do about GPL vs BSD then the module should be GPL. If 99% of the PVR
is open source code, how _dare_ they hold 1% back!

b) whilst they are using linux, they have developed the module off
their own back and hence deserve the right to license their IPR as
they see fit.

I can see my "gut feel" answer swapping between a) and b) on something
as trivial as code complexity or length - but then why should a 5KB
module be treated differently from (shudder) a 500KB module?

Adrian
--
Adrian Bridgett - adrian@???
GPG key available on public key servers