On Fri, 14 May 1999, you wrote:
>On Thu, 13 May 1999, Taral wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 1999, Nolan Darilek wrote:
>>
>> > Last week I purchased an SBLive and downloaded the beta driver from
>> > http://developer.soundblaster.com/linux/. The driver only includes 2
>> > modules, though, and no source. Is this in violation of the GPL, since
>> > they aren't providing the kernel source required to build the modules,
>> > which are components of the full kernel? I thought I'd ask here, since
>> > I'm hesitant to email a huge company with a doubtlessly large legal
>> > staff and tell them that they aren't complying with the GPL.
>>
>> Linus made a specific licensing exception for binary modules.
>
>Could someone please explain to me what the licensing issue is? If binary
>modules are linked against GPL'd code, then they're GPL'd, right? (That's
>why the LGPL exists.) And according to the GPL...
>"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
>as expressly provided under this License."
>
>That seems to indicate that the GPL permits no licensing exceptions.
Technically, you are correct, and that is how the FSF interprets the GPL. Linus
did make an exception for BINARY kernel modules, provided that they DON'T
require any kernel mods. I believe that this was done to allow hardware vendors
to develop proprietary drivers, since it was clear that SOME vendor would never
release their specs to the free software community, so that this would be the
only way to get drivers for some devices.
There was an issue with this recently over MOSIX, which is a
clustering/load-leveling module which required significant kernel mods. Even
though this was developed by Hebrew Univerity in Israel, and had been developed
for several other Unix variants first, they had to stop distributing it due to
GPL license restrictions which technically required them to release the source
to their module.
>Gee, I never thought about Linux and licensing. Does Linus hold the
>copyright to all of the kernel code? Can a copyright holder change his
>mind and use a different license from one release to the next? That would
>defeat the purpose of the GPL, wouldn't it?
>From what I understand, all the contributors to the kernel hold the copyright
in common. Technically, all of the kernel developers would have to agree in
order to grant an exception. There is language in the GPL which permits the
copyright holders to do this, however, in practice it would be impossible to
get a unanimous approval of such an exception. Linus granted the binary module
exception as an individual, and from what I understand none of the other
developers objected. Of course, it's Linus we're talking about, so that's not
surprising. But any of the other developers could probably overturn the
exception if they wanted to.
It wouldn't seem possible to release something under another license after it
had been GPLed. The GPL is a pretty viral license, once something has been
GPLed, it is required that anything derived from it be GPLed. Code could be
forked, but each branch would have to be released under the GPL.
The GPL is a very interesting document which is sometimes difficult to
interpret - sort of like the Constitution and Amendments.
--
Simon Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Operating Systems Specialist
Department of Utilities
University of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
