Re: OFFTOPIC: binary modules, bad idea!

Stephen Williams (
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 23:45:55 -0800

Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> GPL and Library GPL do _not_ say that you have to write under GPL if you
> USE the library, only if you modify it! said:
> How does this apply to kernel modules?

It doesn't. This all got started when some people (including myself) moaned
about not being able to distribute modules in binary form, and other people
chimed in and moaned about how people who hide source code are evil, and
yet another group moaned that commercial vendors don't port to Linux because
they're forced by the GPL to include source. Others (including myself)
pointed out that this is not the case, not even when using the gnu libraries,
due to the distribution of a commercial product not actually distributing
binaries of GPLed products thanks to the magic of dynamic linking and this has
generally been a colorful discussion.

Of course, now everybody thinks I'm a weenie bean-counter with dilusions
of trade secrets, but all I want to do is be able to pre-compile my device
driver modules for my customers (many of whom are NT users and can't spell
"C") so I can make a nifty little .rpm that has device drivers in them.
They can have the bloody source!

At least, I think that's how it happened.

And I still want to be able to distribute binary modules. (With source,
of course.)

Steve (run-on-sentences) Williams

"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And lines to code before I sleep, And lines to code before I sleep."