OT: Re: [clue-tech] Shame shame

[Collins Richey]

On 6/19/06, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

All of this is probably true to the letter of the law, but I have
always found the strictly-interpreted GPL to be the most annoying
feature of FOSS. Bring on the BSD licenses.

-- 
Collins Richey
     If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
     of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.