Cisco Cisco IPICS Dispatch Console Licensing Information

 

It is flagged as tainted, because your argument that it is "the same code"

is totally BOGUS AND UNTRUE!

 

In the binary kernel module case, a bug in the code corrupts random data

structures, or accesses kernel internals without holding the proper locks,

or does a million other things wrong, BECAUSE A KERNEL MODULE IS VERY

INTIMATELY LINKED WITH THE KERNEL.

 

A kernel module is _not_ a separate work, and can in _no_ way be seen as

"part of the hardware". It's very much a part of the _kernel_. And the

kernel developers require that such code be GPL'd so that it can be fixed,

or if there's a valid argument that it's not a derived work and not GPL'd,

then the kernel developers who have to support the end result mess most

definitely do need to know about the taint.

 

You are not the first (and sadly, you likely won't be the last) person to

equate binary kernel modules with binary firmware. And I tell you that

such a comparison is ABSOLUTE CRAPOLA. There's a damn big difference

between running firmware on another chip behind a PCI bus, and linking

into the kernel directly.

 

And if you don't see that difference, then you are either terminally

stupid, or you have some ulterior reason to claim that they are the same

case even though they clearly are NOT.

 

> Can you honestly tell apart the two cases, if you don't make a it a case

> of "religion war"?

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

 

Linus

 

Date:Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:19:52 -0800 (PST)

From:Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

To:Peter Chubb

cc:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312050853200.9125@home.osdl.org>

 

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Peter Chubb wrote:

>

> As I understand it, SCO is/was claiming that JFS and XFS are derived

> works of the UNIX source base, because they were developed to match

> the internal interfaces of UNIX, and with knowledge of the internals

> of UNIX -- and they hold the copyrights of and are the licensor of UNIX.

 

Yes, and I'm not claiming anything like that.