Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008?

[Void Main]

Ok, so as mentioned on the kernel mailing list file system and device drivers could be built to run in user space (e.g. FUSE) and then they would really be no different than an other application. I personally don't believe a kernel module is a derivative work of the kernel and thus don't believe a shipped binary kernel module violates the GPL. We might never know unless a case is actually brought to court. Of course I would rather all kernel modules be open/Free along with every other piece of software known to man, but again I don't believe the basic nature of a binary kernel module is a derivative work and a violation of the GPL.

[Calum]

forgive me if this has been addressed and i just missed it, but piratepenguin, what if linus torvalds wrote a piece of software, then licenced it under his own terms, which are in effect the GPL plus the extra bit about non-Free modules, and then after this other people start contributing? They contribute understanding the licence the code is under and when they contribute to linus' tree, they accept those conditions. If they want to have a GPL only kernel with no proprietary modules allowed, then they should start their own fork, yes?

or have i missed something?

i'm just not convinced that torvalds doesn't have the right to continue to specify this about the kernel modules.

[Void Main]

Very interesting question. I have been searching for an answer on the GNU site, especially on the FAQ pages. The closest thing I can find is this FAQ question:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... dInterface

How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only?
Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:

Code: Select all

    Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making
    a combined work based on ABC.  Thus, the terms and conditions of
    the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

    In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give
    you permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or
    libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with independent
    modules that communicate with ABC solely through the ABCDEF interface.
    You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the
    GNU GPL for ABC and the licenses of the other code concerned, provided
    that you include the source code of that other code when and as the
    GNU GPL requires distribution of source code.

    Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated
    to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
    their choice whether to do so.  The GNU General Public License gives
    permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
    exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
    carries forward this exception.

Now, that ryder at the top of the GPL in the root directory doesn't exactly say that but it's close. I also question if Linus is really allowed to place that ryder where he did (in the actual license file itself). It seems that the ryder should be placed in each source file but I'm not really sure. I might go over and try and get some discussion about this on Groklaw and see if I can get a bit more of a legal perspective on it. But, from the FAQ question I quoted it seems that you might be correct. Someone could fork the code and not use the ryder. I'm far from certain about this though.

[Calum]

if the original code was under the GPL, then this fork would be legal i think (though i am NO legal expert, but isn't this very thing the actual point of the GPL?) and of course the extra clauses about the binary modules wouldn't stop anybody from forking either, would it?

Of course people don't do this because they have seen how detrimental this attitude has been for *BSD.

I'd be very interested to read further discussion on this void, if you get a good one going, do please post the URL here.

[Void Main]

Just posed the [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20061218153025687&title=Expert%20GPL%20analysis%2Fadvice%20wanted%20for%20anwers%20to%20GPL%20questions&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=518532#c518821[/url]questions on Groklaw[/url]. Don't know if I'll get any help.

[Calum]

the responses so far make rock solid sense to me anyway.

by just using the syscalls, as somebody says there, this means the modules, from the kernel's perspective are actually user code, i would have thought, thus they can have their own licences, yes?

also, you are right that the LGPL was not in existence when the linux kernel was first "released" as a project open to contributors (but i am sure you were sure of this already!)

edit: i suspect this post uses horrible inaccurate terminology, but hopefully you knew what i meant.

[Void Main]

Got some good responses to my original question and then I asked about who could bring suit regarding GPL violations and got a couple of good answers. Even PJ pointed out a previous Groklaw article showing an example of IBM doing just this.

[Void Main]

A nice little article on the subject:
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/010207-kernel.html

[Calum]

that's an interesting statement about how the GPL licence allows you to do whatever you like with GPL code, it set off a few alarms, i am not sure that's my understanding of the GPL, perhaps he is thinking of another popular open source licence?

it is more likely that i have missed something.

[Void Main]

that's an interesting statement about how the GPL licence allows you to do whatever you like with GPL code, it set off a few alarms, i am not sure that's my understanding of the GPL, perhaps he is thinking of another popular open source licence?

it is more likely that i have missed something.

I'm not sure exactly what part of the article you are referring to but it is true as a "user" you are free to do whatever you want with the code for your own purposes. Where the license comes in to play is when you redistribute that code or resulting binaries to someone else.

[Calum]

sorry,

The GPL is quite clear in its statement that somebody who is in possession of GPL-licensed code can use it in any way they wish. If they want to combine their nice free kernel with a big, proprietary binary blob, they are fully within their rights to do so.

(my italics)


in my opinion, that statement is seriously at odds with statement 2 of the GPL.

[Void Main]

Not at all, as long as you don't distribute it. The real question is, is a Linux kernel module a "derivative" and Linus has proclaimed that it is not. If a module were actually a derivative work then it would have to be distributed under the GPL.

[Calum]

i agree with Linus in that respect, but i was just taking "any way you wish" to include redistribution, i suppose. If i had some software, i might wish to distribute it, especially if i had modified it, that's all i was saying. it's just a misleading statement in the article in my opinion.

[Void Main]

I wouldn't consider "distributing" to be "using". Now if instead of saying "use it in any way that they wish" he would have said "do with whatever they wish" then I would agree with you. It certainly could have been a little more specific.

[Calum]

well, i see what you mean!

i hadn't considered "use" in the context of computing/software i suppose, but in its broader use in the language, which in my interpretation (which because english is a dynamic language is probably different from yours) would include doing anything at all with it, including distributing.

Anyway, that aside, it's the journalist's rresponsibility to an extent to anticipate the variations in meaning of the words (s)he uses in print and use words which are as unambiguous as possible, i think.