Re: GPL Violation?

From: Grzegorz Kulewski
Date: Thu Aug 17 2006 - 08:37:00 EST

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:32:51AM -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Closed source modules are lame, and against the spirit of open source, but
that still doesn't make them against the license.

This is _your personal interpretation_ of what consists a "derived work"
under the GPL.

Other people have other opinions on this issue.

Other people even have asked lawyers that said they'd disagree with
interpretations like the one you expressed.


Then why not make some official and only right interpretation of what is derived work for GPL2 in Linux and what is not, make it part of license or COPYING file and end this type questions, doubts and flamewars once for ever?

Why does Linus and others let lawyers and courts decide in such (important?) thing like what is allowed in Linux (or with Linux) and what is not?

Why not be brave, make the decission (preferably as liberal as possible) and end all of this instead of letting others decide (worse: letting others decide based on different and changing local, national rights and probably also on who is paying them)?

If it would mean changing Linux license (and getting every contributor agreement) then it could be made at least as a clear comment ("What is and what is not derived work for GPL2 in Linux kernel in opinion of main Linux kernel developers?") in the begining of the COPYING file, signed by most important kernel developers (that produced 99% of the code and headers used or touched by controversial modules anyway).


Grzegorz Kulewski

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at