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.

Read More...

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"...

It just isn't true...

The link to the critical site in the article is broken. When you get the 404 error, erase the %22%22 at the end of the url

Very good discussion.

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...