Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:51:23 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <tom@dbservice.com> wrote:
> > Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
> > play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
> > 'printf(license)'?
> 
> Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the
> jerks who make proprietary modules are just blatantly breaking the
> law.  But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that
> licenses other than the GPL are ok.

Given that the definition of "derived work" in the software world is still
quite squishy and not firmed up, it's not at all clear that proprietary
modules are "blatantly" breaking the law.  In particular, feel free to
cite actual statute or case law that proves unequivocally that modules that
have a GPL shim that interface between the kernel and a binary blob are
breaking the law.

Hint: first you have to prove that the kernel API doesn't qualify as 'scenes
a faire' - a tough job when calling a function in any way but the one approved
one will cause an oops. ;)

Attachment: pgp9wV7SiF0KB.pgp
Description: PGP signature