On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 07:54:08PM +0100, James Chapman wrote: > 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 > > You need to stop thinking of your code as a library. It's a binary kernel > module. > > Binary kernel modules are legal only if they use _standard_, non-GPL kernel > APIs. You can't add a GPL shim/driver to expose new, proprietary hooks for > use by non-GPL code either. As Greg said, that's illegal. I also say that there is no way that binary kernel modules can be legal at all, don't let the EXPORT_SYMBOL / EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL fool you into thinking otherwise. I have stated many times, in many places, and have many lawyers who have said the same thing, so please do not think I feel otherwise. thanks, greg k-h
