Hi,

If a client does not want to publish his project work(i.e.the source code) in Linux due to some privacy issues, what are the possibilities or steps we have to take for that?

Please reply.

Where is the code, in the kernel? If so, then just don't redistribute the changed code and you'll be within the copyright requirements for the kernel.

Otherwise, please say more about the nature of the code and where it is in relation to the kernel and/or various stock libraries.

If it is planned to be within the kernel source code, but may interact with their own libraries,applications and if the client did not submit the kernel source to the main line Linux kernel for staging,is it not a copyright infringement in GPL?

Is it ok if that kernel source code interacts with other open source libraries,applications and if we take responsibility to fix any side effects or bug issues in the final product due to the changes in kernel source code?

I am asking for awareness of the License terms(to look before leap).

Great; so again, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Asking us repeatedly to look things up for you isn't pleasant. You can easily find Linux licensing terms if you go look. You've been asking about 'kernel' things for years now....have you done ANY research yet??

And if this is for your 'client', we aren't going to do your job for you; again, show some effort of your own.

Or, better yet, spend a few hundred bucks to buy the time of a truly-qualified intellectual property attorney. An individual who actually is "an expert in this law, within your country."

2 members found this post helpful.

My understanding is that changes your client makes to the Linux kernel source are by definition GPL-licensed, and must be made available under those terms.

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-ge...lic-license-v2

Therefore, the answer is "find some way to do what you need to do without actually modifying the kernel source".

This is the second best answer you're going to get here, after "go talk to a lawyer".

1 members found this post helpful.

Maybe you should learn to use BSD instead....

I'm no lawyer but the GPL seems clear-cut to me. It does not require you to make available to other people any derivative GPL code that you have written if you do not want to. You are perfectly free to keep it to yourself. However, if you choose to distribute GPL code or its compiled product, you must do so under GPL conditions. In other words, if there are people downstream of you, you cannot impose any kind of secrecy on them.

So if you make your own kernel modifications and keep them secret, that's fine as long as you are the only person using the modified kernel. But you can't sell it to others unless you make the modified source code available too.

4 members found this post helpful.

because of the licensing of Linux code under a free code license, it will not work to make a completely commercial product that you will sell with closed source code

Really?? Are you SURE about that?? Can you fill in more details? Because the GPL doesn't seem to read as you're saying it does. I'm not a lawyer, and those are the only people who should be truly answering this question with any sort of certainty.

Any derivative of code licensed under GPL is itself GPL. That's not the case for all free software. I gather that the BSD licence allows users to distribute their own modified code under any terms they like, so defenders of that licence say that BSD is "freer" than GPL. istr that that's how Microsoft acquired their networking software.

There is also the lesser GPL (LGPL) which is used for libraries and does allow derivative works to be patented.

I wasn't questioning you, hazel, but the questionable advice given by the (likely) spammer (who has been reported).