I don't see how it's any less a violation of the GPL. Either you can
link binary-only modules or you can't; whether Linus ``permits'' certain
types of modules to link with the kernel -- based on legally-fun
characteristics like who added the appropriate EXPORT_SYMBOL -- is only
interesting from a GPL-violation perspective if he recently became a
judge.
If you're discussing whether Linus (or whoever owns that code -- he
keeps saying that < 10% of the code is his, right?) wants to press
something against them, then his personal preferences for link
boundaries are certainly relevant, but then the GPL isn't. You're
talking about ``GPL + certain specific, additional freedoms'', which is
GPL-compatible, but not GPL.
(A derivative of such a ``GPL+'' -- Linus-PL? -- body of code and some
GPL'd code would likely be GPL itself, due to the nature of the GPL,
which makes the 10% ownership issue even more interesting. Are binary
modules legal at all? And does it matter, if nobody is going to go
after those who distribute them with the kernel?)
Mike
(licenses are hard; let's go shopping)
-- 1551688.69 1125767.53- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/