On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:07:41PM -0600, Vadim Klishko wrote: > On Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:37 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:40:32AM +0100, James Chapman wrote: > >> > >> Is the optional "library" proprietary (binary only)? If so, think > >> carefully about GPL implications. Adding a simple GPL driver to expose > >> proprietary hooks isn't good... > > > Yes, that was exactly the idea. > > > It's not only, "not good", it's flat out illegal and violates the > > license of the kernel. Do not do this at all if you are thinking you > > can keep something from being released under the GPL. > > > I thought there was a legal way of doing it as described here: > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs The kernel is not a "system library", nor does it interact with one at all. Also note that the kernel is covered under GPLv2, not v3, which is the description of most of the answers on that page. There is no way to create a "GPL Condom" to protect your code in the kernel from being released under the GPLv2, sorry, that just is not possible. For lots of prior art on this, and lots of failed legal attempts to do this, please see the Samba group, there is a long history of them prevailing on this topic. thanks, greg k-h
