On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 10:59:27PM -0000, Vic wrote:
> > 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!
>
> Morally, you're right, of course. The GPL helps us all, and is a Good
> Thing(tm).
>
> Legally, though, it's not nearly as clear.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation gives some
> examples of the difference between derivative works and aggregation; a
> court *might* decide that a kernel module is part of a bigger programme,
> and is therefore a derivative work (i.e. covered by the GPL) - but that's
> not certain, so (for the timebeing at least) there appears to be room for
> non-free modules alongside a GPL kernel. And LT's arguments about opening
> the floodgates elsewhere ring rather too true for my liking; attempting to
> plug this "loophole" (if that is what it is) runs the risk of outlawing
> all sorts of desirable activities...
I'd say a kernel module binary (though not the source code) must be a
derived work of the kernel headers, though of course I completely
agree with Linus for practical purposes.
If that's true, then the current situation is probably pretty much
ideal. Binary modules are permitted in practice, but the authors of
those modules should know that they are walking on very thin ice.
/J
