linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Ramakanth Gunuganti wrote: > > >>Thanks for the replies, talking to a lawyer seems to >>be too stringent a requirement to even evaluate Linux. >>Who would be the ultimate authority to give definitive >>answers to these questions? >> >>Since it's the Linux kernel that's under GPLv2, any >>work done here should be released under GPLv2. That >>part seems to be clear, however any product would >>include other things that could be proprietary. If >>Linux kernel is made part of this proprietary package, >>how does the distribution work. Can we just claim that >>part of the package is under GPL and only release the >>source code for the kernel portions. >> > > [See bottom. Please do not top-post.] > > >>-Ram >> >>--- Kyle Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>On Apr 11, 2006, at 02:31:27, Ramakanth Gunuganti >>>wrote: >>> >>>>I am trying to understand the GPL boundaries for >>> >>>Linux, any >>> >>>>clarification provided on the following issues >>> >>>below would be great: >>> >>>>[...] >>>>Anyone trying to build a new application to work >>> >>>on Linux must have >>> >>>>these issues clarified, if you can share your >>> >>>experiences that >>> >>>>would be great too. >>> >>>If you're planning to make money off of any code >>>developed based in >>>part off of the Linux Kernel, you should definitely >>>contact a lawyer >>>familiar with the linux kernel and ask them. Any >>>advice you get from >>>this list should probably come prefixed with >>>"IANAL", and as such >>>isn't worth terribly much. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Kyle Moffett >>> >>> >> > > Nobody can produce a definitive answer because nobody knows > what you are doing. You could be making a module that exposes > the entire contents of the kernel to user-space, then writing > user-space programs that manipulate the kernel. Such user-space > programs are then <probably> derived works and would need a GPL > License. > > On the other hand, you could be making a Hexagrid-confuser(tm) > that runs a Pyrosynchrogem(tm), both proprietary items your > company manufactures for the Red Sox. You need to make a kernel > driver to interface with it, plus a whole bunch of proprietary > user-mode software to help the Red Sox win another world series. > In this case, only the driver needs to be GPL as long as it > doesn't extend or modify the established Unix/Linux API. BUT, > you imply that you need to modify the kernel in addition to > writing a driver. This means that you are extending the API, > which just __might__ require that any code that interfaces > with that extension be GPL as well. That's why you __need__ > a lawyer if you are going to change the kernel to run your code. > > Easiest way out is to make a conventional driver to interface > with your device. Then write proprietary code that interfaces > with it. Do not make any kernel changes, and do publish your > driver under a GPL license. Might be worth mentioning that if you intend to write a driver that interfaces with any kernel under any license (bar any kernel that you write yourself), be it Windows, Linux, *BSD, etc you SHOULD talk to a lawyer as every license has it's quirks and gotchas. This is NOT specific to the GPL or the Linux kernel. // Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Re: GPL issues
- From: Ramakanth Gunuganti <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL issues
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL issues
- Prev by Date: Re: GPL issues
- Next by Date: Re: [lm-sensors] scx200_acb: Use PCI I/O resource when appropriate
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL issues
- Next by thread: Re: GPL issues
- Index(es):