LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Alan Kennington <akenning@topology.org>
  To  : LinuxSA <linuxsa@linuxsa.org.au>
  Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 01:21:27 +0930

request for advice on non-free open license

Can I impose commerical licence conditions on 2 source 
files which are to be added to a linux kernel to 
extend its functionality?


I could wade through all the heaps of materials on the net
about IP and licences and GPL etc. etc. etc., but I'd much
appreciate some free advice on this topic to save
me time etc.

Here is the situation:
Suppose I want to charge money for some open source software.
And suppose we just ignore the well-known fact that anything
that is not free is bad, and I should sell all my worldly goods
and go to the third world and help the poor etc.
I'm not worried about the moral case here for a moment,
just the legal constraints.

Suppose I want to distribute 2 new files which are to be
added to the linux kernel to extend its functionality
with some "magic algorithms". Don't worry about what they are.
I want users to be able to see my software, and to be able
to compile and link it with their kernel etc., but for
my efforts, I'd like them to send me US$500/year if they use this
software in a particular context.
I'm expecting users in this context to save about 
US$10,000 per year as a result of using my 2 files in one PC.
So I don't feel too guilty about asking for the US$500.
And don't worry about enforcement. 
I will know if people are using my 2 files' worth of software.
Lots of software is open source but commercial.

Question:
Is it in accordance with the letter of the GPL to add my own
completely original code to the kernel - as extensions of linux -
and insert a copyright notice and licence notice saying that
the user must pay me money?

This would not be a kernel module.
It would not be a kernel patch.

If it was a module, I think that the GPL does not forbid me
from asking for money for a licence.

If it was a patch, I imagine that it _would_ be forbidden by
the GPL to ask money for the patch.

In my case, it's sort of a module, but not a device driver style
of module. I.e. it's a module in the engineering sense, but not
in the sense of having a major device number sort of thing.

==========================================================
My underlying motivation for this is that I don't want to
go down the patent path. Instead, I want to go down the
copyright path, since software patents are deeply immoral,
as we all know.

Cheers,
Alan Kennington.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    name: Dr. Alan Kennington
  e-mail: akenning@topology.org
 website: http://www.topology.org/
    city: Adelaide, South Australia
  coords: 34.88051 S, 138.59334 E
timezone: UTC+0930 http://www.topology.org/timezone.html
 pgp-key: http://www.topology.org/key_ak2.asc

-- 
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/  IRC: #linuxsa on irc.linux.org.au
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject