from my point of view, the 'tainting-rule' for kernel-modules is too
restrictive, allowing GPL-only modules to not be marked as tainting the
kernel.
Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded
legally?
I do not at all want to hide my source code in any way, but under some
circumstances, the pure GPL is too restrictive, and would reduce interest in
open-source projects significantly.
Opinions?
Regards,
Axel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
there are 2 angles here:
1) there already is "GPL with additional rights" which LGPL is just one
form of
and
2) if you mix LGPL with GPL (eg kernel), the LGPL license itself says it
autoconverts to GPL, so you can't even have a LGPL module *loaded*.
(Not saying that your source can't be LGPL but when you link it into the
kernel at runtime it turns GPL)
>> Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded
>> legally?
>
> there are 2 angles here:
> 1) there already is "GPL with additional rights" which LGPL is just one
> form of
What about BSD? That's open enough for me.
> and
> 2) if you mix LGPL with GPL (eg kernel), the LGPL license itself says it
> autoconverts to GPL, so you can't even have a LGPL module *loaded*.
> (Not saying that your source can't be LGPL but when you link it into the
> kernel at runtime it turns GPL)
That would only make a difference if you have the intention of
distributing /proc/kcore.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Ok, I didn'd see it before - thx.
> and
> 2) if you mix LGPL with GPL (eg kernel), the LGPL license itself says it
> autoconverts to GPL, so you can't even have a LGPL module *loaded*.
> (Not saying that your source can't be LGPL but when you link it into the
> kernel at runtime it turns GPL)
What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As
I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be
GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may
develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your
changes must be available as source code'.
I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my
open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and
partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as
there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use*
it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must
be GPL?
(If this is OT, please tell me, and excuse the noise)
On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:24, you wrote:
> What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As
> I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be
> GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may
> develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your
> changes must be available as source code'.
>
> I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my
> open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and
> partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as
> there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use*
> it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must
> be GPL?
You may have a look at Linus' comment in the
COPYING file of the kernel tree.
> Axel
- --
Regards Michael Buesch [ http://www.tuxsoft.de.vu ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAnLZ6FGK1OIvVOP4RAjvDAKCiFVDEHWOMtR5i/DwTt8iguA2+BwCfWiOa
B1shQRhLGvSWv1/fgNfQOGo=
=6og7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----