Cisco Cisco IPICS Dispatch Console Licensing Information

just doesn't matter.

 

And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.

The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,

anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.

 

Now, the "derived work" issue in copyright law is the only thing that

leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user

space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_

derived works.

 

But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was

originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived

work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived

work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?

 

THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe

that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because

they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux

behaviour.

 

Basically:

- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_

  works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived

  work.

- anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal

  Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around

  with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

 

Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem

module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the

first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just

because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface

to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that

judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray

area.

 

Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to

tell the AFS guys so.

 

Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work?

HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that non-modules

clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the kenrel that you

can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived works just by virtue

of being very intimate - and because the GPL expressly mentions linking).

 

So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just

one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't