GPL question
CafTgr
looking at developing a linux-based embedded control system for a
piece of equipment. This would consist of...
a) A stripped down linux distribution
b) A kernel module, developed in-house
c) A userland program, also developed in house
We are not modifying the kernel in any way. We would like to protect
our in-house software (that is, sell it without revealing the source).
Does the GPL allow this? My impression is that it does given that we
supply the source to the kernel (because it's GPL). Thanks in advance
Barry Margolin
caf...@netscape.net (CafTgr) wrote:
Sounds alot like what TiVo did. They use Linux as the OS on their video
recorders, but don't give away the software that implements the UI or
video processing.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Paul Jarc
> b) A kernel module, developed in-house
According to Linux, kernel modules are derivatives of the kernel, and
so must not be distributed except under the GPL. He might be wrong,
but you could only prove it by going to court, which you'd probably
like to avoid. So to be safe, put your module under the GPL.
paul
Alexander Terekhov
Paul Jarc wrote:
>
> caf...@netscape.net (CafTgr) wrote:
> > b) A kernel module, developed in-house
>
> According to Linux,
Torvalds, I guess.
> kernel modules are derivatives of the kernel, and
> so must not be distributed except under the GPL.
That's utter bullshit. Just like his other crapola on GPL_ONLY
stuff: "As it is, the kernel requires modules to tell it their
license, and if you lie to it, that is not only potentially
violating the DMCA, it's also likely a crime under regular
copyright laws (ie you are knowingly misrepresenting a license
- in this case the license of the binary part, and that's not
legal either)." Sega vs. Accolade, to begin with.
> He might be wrong,
Well, watching him playing "gray area, be afraid" game from
time to time on lkml is quite entertaining.
> but you could only prove it by going to court, which you'd probably
> like to avoid. So to be safe, put your module under the GPL.
Yeah. And also buy a ton or so of "SCO IP license"... to be
safe.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> We are not modifying the kernel in any way. We would like to protect
> our in-house software (that is, sell it without revealing the source).
> Does the GPL allow this? My impression is that it does given that we
> supply the source to the kernel (because it's GPL). Thanks in advance
Regardless of what the GPL says, Linus has given some permission towards
linking of binary modules.
However, I am confused with your notion of protection. For such a small
piece of softwar aren't you having a lot more costs in order to gain
such allegded protection than simply releasing the module under the GPL?
It would even be likely it could get integrated and that would reduce a
lot the costs of development and maintainance as new Linux versions come
out.
My impression is that you're raising your costs due to a perceived
protection that does not exist.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Paul Jarc
> According to Linux, kernel modules are derivatives of the kernel,
Oops... s/Linux/Linus/
paul
CafTgr
> On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 15:40 -0700, CafTgr wrote:
> > We are not modifying the kernel in any way. We would like to protect
> > our in-house software (that is, sell it without revealing the source).
> > Does the GPL allow this? My impression is that it does given that we
> > supply the source to the kernel (because it's GPL). Thanks in advance
>
> Regardless of what the GPL says, Linus has given some permission towards
> linking of binary modules.
>
> However, I am confused with your notion of protection. For such a small
> piece of softwar aren't you having a lot more costs in order to gain
> such allegded protection than simply releasing the module under the GPL?
>
> It would even be likely it could get integrated and that would reduce a
> lot the costs of development and maintainance as new Linux versions come
> out.
>
> My impression is that you're raising your costs due to a perceived
> protection that does not exist.
>
> Rui
You're probably right, but it's not my decision to make :)
>
> --
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
> Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
> See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
> --