Cisco Cisco IPICS Dispatch Console Licensing Information

 

Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Date:Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:43:42 -0800 (PST)

From:Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

To:David Schwartz

cc:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

>

> Yes, but they will cite the prohibition against *creating* derived

> works.

 

So?

 

The same prohibition exists with the GPL. You are not allowed to create

and distribute a derived work unless it is GPL'd.

 

I don't see what you are arguing against. It is very clear: a kernel

module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.

 

You can then try to prove (through development history etc) that there

would be major reasons why it's not really derived. But your argument

seems to be that _nothing_ is derived, which is clearly totally false, as

you yourself admit when you replace "kernel" with "Harry Potter".

 

Linus

 

Date:Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)

From:Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

To:Kendall Bennet

cc:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:

>

> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux

> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an

> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be

> under the GPL.

 

Nope. No such exception exists.

 

There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard

system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that

isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is

clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not

derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is