OT: Re: [clue-tech] Shame shame

[marcus hall]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:54:08PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
> On 6/18/06, David L. Anselmi <anselmi at anselmi.us> wrote:
> 
> >No, this has nothing to do with the argument about using Free vs.
> >non-Free software.  It's about copyright law and licenses to distribute
> >copies of software.
> >
> 
> IANAL, but I don't believe that Nvidia or VMware or ATI or any of the
> other vendors who have to make use of kernel modules are distributing
> copies of GPL software. By the same token, I don't believe that Oracle
> is doing this either.

What I understand to be at issue is that all kernel modules are supposed
to be compatible with the GPL kernel.  They are considerd a derived work,
since they link with the kernel and include kernel header files.  The
user-mode interface is considered a demarcation line and user programs
are not considered to be derived from the kernel, but kernel modules are
bound a bit tighter...

Now, what the nVidia and VMWare installers do is to distribute source
for a veneer module that contains the kernel dependent interface, and it
presents a stable interface to the proprietary code, which is distributed
as object files.  At install time, the user compiles the veneer and links
things together to actually create the kernel module.  Thus the kernel
module is actually created by the user and not nVidia or VMWare, they are
not distributing the module, so although the module becomes covered by
the GPL after it is built, they are not distributing that, so they do not
have to release source for their proprietary object modules.

Marcus Hall
marcus at tuells.org