LXer: Why Binary-Only Linux Kernel Modules are Illegal
Syndicated Linux NewsThis forum is for the discussion of Syndicated Linux News stories.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
LXer: Why Binary-Only Linux Kernel Modules are Illegal
Published at LXer:
Rick Moen’s LinuxMafia.com knowledgebase has some great information. I ran across a series of postings the other day that clarified the problem with loadable Linux kernel modules at the GPL. As usual, the dividing line between legal and illegal (or permitted and infringing) rests on the legal definition of a derivative work. The usual “is it linking?” question brought up by the GPL is sort of misleading here. As well, Linus’ policy during the early years of the kernel can be a little confusing. [...] I look forward to a Linux kernel copyright holder contacting a blob vendor with this argument. Companies that desire so strongly to “protect [their] valuable intellectual property” might consider respecting the copyright of everyrone who has contributed to the kernel; their argument wears thin by their hypocrisy.
Distribution: K/Ubuntu 18.04-14.04, Scientific Linux 6.3-6.4, Android-x86, Pretty much all distros at one point...
Posts: 1,802
Rep:
I don't think the guy fully understands the legalities of the GPL and the definition of "derived work". Following a public API is not derived, and kernel modules can very much be proprietary, just as long as they don't "borrow" any GPL code.
Arguments like his help spread the myth of the "viral" nature of the GPL... that it "forces open, everything it touches"...
Distribution: K/Ubuntu 18.04-14.04, Scientific Linux 6.3-6.4, Android-x86, Pretty much all distros at one point...
Posts: 1,802
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickh
It probably should be true.
Oh, God, No!!!
Then we'd never have drivers for hardware that was poorly designed to run only on Redmond dictated architecture... It would then take decades instead of years for Linux adoption to reach critical mass...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.