Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Stefan Smietanowski]

Kendall Bennett wrote:

> Erik Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Paul Adams wrote:
> >
> > > Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary
> > > distribution
> > > in some form, I don't see how you can claim
> > > infringement of the
> > > copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S.
> >
> > A kernel module is useless without a Linux kernel in which it can
> > be loaded.  Once loaded, it becomes not merely an adjunct, but an
> > integrat part of the Linux kernel.  Further, it clearly
> > "incorporate[s] a portion of the copyrighted work" since it can
> > only operate within the context of the kernel by utilizing Linux
> > kernel function calls. 
>
>
> But what about the case I stated earlier for a driver that is completely 
> binary portable between different operating systems. Hence the low level 
> portion of the driver is not Linux specific at all, and in fact not even 
> designed specifically with Linux in mind. That muddies the waters even 
> more, and even Linus has said he would believe such a driver to be OK.

You mean kind of like a program being compiled by a compiler?

The program isn't designed for a specific platform/cpu/os/whatnot but
when compiled it's specific to a platform/cpu/os/whatnot. With the
"program" being the low level stuff and the extra cruft all compilers
include being the glue.

// Stefan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/