LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Alan Kennington <akenning@topology.org>
  To  : Richard Sharpe <sharpe@ns.aus.com>
  Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 15:51:53 +0930

Re: request for advice on non-free open license

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:38:20PM +0900, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> At 03:11 PM 5/6/01 +0930, John Edwards wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Can I impose commerical licence conditions on 2 source
> >>files which are to be added to a linux kernel to
> >>extend its functionality?
> >
> >A couple of examples I've used like this would be the Nvidia GLX driver, and
> >the Telemann Satellite card driver. Both compiled as modules for linux, and
> >both came with source. Neither had an open-source licence.
> >
> >The GPL is all about making sure someone can't use your code and then keep
> >it from you and others. If you need to extend an operating system with your
> >functionality, something with a BSD licence might be more appropriate.
> 
> I would have to agree with the above comments ...
> 
> If you were trying to sell Linux without providing the source, then you
> would be violating the GPL.

Richard,

That's not at all the idea I have in mind.

> However, selling an add-on, which has been independently developed seems to
> be a different kettle of fish. Having said that, if you simply took an
> existing driver and modified it to do the new task, I think you will
> violate the GPL. If you used the general driver/module concepts but came up
> with your own driver for something, you should be on good grounds. I would
> think that a BSD licence would be appropriate in that case.

The idea is that I am writing completely new code.
But there are areas of the linux kernel which are modular in the sense that
they have clear internal interfaces which are well documented, and therefore
I can easily add my module, but these are not modules in the
sense of a device driver module.
There's a specific exemption in the case of "loadable modules" which
are completely original code, but there are other parts which
are modules but not loadable modules.

This is analogous to writing an Apache module which is not
a shared-object module. In this case, your early have to compile
it into the Apache source tree. I.e. you really have to provide
source.

An interesting idea I thought of is this:

-	It's okay to have commercial application software in linux.

-	So I could write an application which:
	-	downloads the latest kernel
	-	patches in the changes
	- 	recompiles the kernel
	-	runs lilo etc. etc.
	-	reboots the machine.

Now there's an application program which just happens to
rewrite the kernel. The application could even boot back to the
original kernel and delete the modified kernel source
when it exits!

But the idea of writing a public domain stub patch to invoke
a loadable module is the simplest and sneakiest idea.

All things considered, though, I think I'll ust publish my
source on the net, and not bother to tell anyone why it's
useful. It'll take years for anyone to work out what it's good for.

Cheers, and thanks,
Alan Kennington.

-- 
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