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

Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> 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?

For me it would come down to price. If Nvidia wanted £29.99 for a binary
driver that would make my card/lcd fly, I would most likely pay the
price. If on the other hand it was £99.99, I would look around for a
"good enough" solution that was GPL/FLOSS.

I think it all boils down to a person's pain threshold. Everyone has a
different level. It varies from "I only run GPL" to "There are MS
applications I can't live without". There exists a wide and varied
spectrum of users.