OT: Re: [clue-tech] Shame shame

[Angelo Bertolli]

marcus hall wrote:

>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.
>  
>
... unless they used kernel source code (any of it) to construct their 
module.  In which case the GPL applies.  It doesn't matter who compiles 
it.  The kernel source is only available to those who comply with the 
GPL, otherwise they have broken the license for the code they had to use 
to make their module.

Angelo