Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc.
>
> http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html
>
> Now,
>
> ----
> One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel,
> where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one
> might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that
> is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called
> "blobs," are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating
> system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.)
>
> Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in
> its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary
> video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't
> link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms.
> ----
>
> I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen
> thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is
> kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception
> for user space).
>
> Any thoughts?
Perhaps this:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Besides, I'm free to insert whatever modules I want in my kernel, so
long as I don't distribute /proc/kcore.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: