RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Kendall Bennett]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In fact, a user program written in 1991 is actually still likely
> to run, if it doesn't do a lot of special things. So user programs
> really are a hell of a lot more insulated than kernel modules,
> which have been known to break weekly. 

IMHO (and IANAL of course), it seems a bit tenuous to me the argument 
that just because you deliberating break compatibility at the module 
level on a regular basis, that they are automatically derived works. 
Clearly the module interfaces could be stabilised and published, and if 
you consider the instance of a single kernel version in time, that module 
ABI *is* published and *is* stable *for that version*. Just because you 
make an active effort to change things and actively *not* document the 
ABI other than in the source code across kernel versions, doesn't 
automatically make a module a derived work. 

IMHO anyway.

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~

-
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/