> Anyway, your no compromises approach is admirable but it doesn't erase > the fact that all proprietary Linux drivers use EXPORT_SYMBOL code. People still steal from shops. It doesn't mean we should abolish the idea of theft. > So what you're really saying is no proprietary drivers are allowed to be > loaded into a Linux kernel. The GPL defines the boundary. Whether it is possible for a work to be non-derivative and a kernel module is a matter for the lawyers to debate. If it is derivative however I don't think there is quite so much doubt. Linus wrote the following |>"On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote: |> |> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux |> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an |> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be |> under the GPL. | |Nope. No such exception exists. | |There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard |system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that |isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is |clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not |derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is |just doesn't matter. | |And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. |The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result, |anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple. (and then goes on to discuss further his own personal opinion) http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735 But you still misunderstand the fundamental problem, and this really needs to be discussed with Red Hat legal. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
