Re: kernel driver module with proprietary closed source piece.
Sven Luther <email@example.com>:
> Wemm, but the driver minus the user space thingy is GPLed, and can be
> distributed with a standard kernel, and there is no breach of the GPL as
> long as nobody use it, right ?
> The same thing would apply if you simply moved the proprietary part into
> a separate kernel module, with just minimal API or something such, isn't
> it ?
I think there is general consensus that splitting stuff into separate
components, distributed separately, is not a valid way of bypassing
the GPL. If you distribute stuff whose only plausible purpose is to
end up on someone's system as part of a program containing both GPL
and GPL-incompatible parts, then you are infringing the copyright of
the authors of the GPL parts (unless they gave you some additional
The distribution of GPL-incompatible kernel modules is possible
because modules that communicate via the standard module interface are
not considered to be part of the kernel, I think.