Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Scripsit Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>
> But this new view leads me to other interesting effects: (assuming we
> are talking about a close source driver, coming in binary form, but
> under the GPL, distributed by the copyright holder)
> * The driver is under the GPL, and since I want to use it (not
> distribute it), I do not violate the GPL.
> * Therefore when linking with the kernel, the module should have full
> access to all functions and not taint the kernel.
> * This way, proprietary drivers can use the full kernel functionality,
> when downloaded directly from the copyright holder.
There's not complete agreement about this. Some would claim that just
by being compiled using headers from the kernel sources, the binary
driver is legally derived from the kernel sources, and that the vendor
must therefore distribute with source.
However, it seems that the upstream Linux kernel maintainers' position
is that loadable modules in .o form are not considered derivates of
the kernel source, and so do not need to be GPLed. The kernel sources
even contains infrastructure for this (i.e., modules can declare which
license they are under, and 2.4 kernels explicitly make some but not
all kernel symbols available to non-GPL modules).
<http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-19>
If one links such modules statically into a kernel image of one's own,
the natural consequence of this would be that the image cannot be
*distributed*, but it sould be perfectly legal to *use* it.
> Sure, the GPL does prohibit linking with GPL-incompatible code.
Not really. It just effectively prohibits distribution of the
resulting binary. As long as one just uses it for oneself, there
should be no problem.
--
Henning Makholm "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."
Reply to: