Cisco Cisco IPICS Release 2.1 Licensing Information

Page of 20889
             Open Source Used In  Cisco Instant Connect 4.10(1)                                                                                                                                   
2323
 to anybody else, feel free to do so. And if you want to argue legal
 points with me or point somehting out, I'm always interested. To a
 point ;-]
 
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Barnes wrote:
>
> I've been exchanging e-mail with Richard Stallman for a couple of
> weeks about the finer points of the GPL.
 
I feel your pain.
 
> I've have spent time pouring through mailing list archives, usenet,
> and web search engines to find out what's already been covered about
> your statement of allowing dynamically loaded kernel modules with
> proprietary code to co-exist with the Linux kernel.  So far I've
> been unable to find anything beyond vague statements attributed to
> you.  If these issues are addressed somewhere already, please refer
> me.
 
Well, it really boils down to the equivalent of "_all_ derived modules
have to be GPL'd". An external module doesn't really change the GPL in
that respect.
 
There are (mainly historical) examples of UNIX device drivers and some
UNIX filesystems that were pre-existing pieces of work, and which had
fairly well-defined and clear interfaces and that I personally could not
really consider any kind of "derived work" at all, and that were thus
acceptable. The clearest example of this is probably the AFS (the Andrew
Filesystem), but there have been various device drivers ported from SCO
too.
 
> Issue #1
> ========
> Currently the GPL version 2 license is the only license covering the
> Linux kernel.  I cannot find any alternative license explaining the
> loadable kernel module exception which makes your position difficult
> to legally analyze.
>
> There is a note at the top of www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING,
> but that states "user programs" which would clearly not apply to
> kernel modules.
>
> Could you clarify in writing what the exception precisely states?
 
Well, there really is no exception. However, copyright law obviously
hinges on the definition of "derived work", and as such anything can
always be argued on that point.