Linux: the GPL and Binary Modules

An anonymous reader writes "When first made available in September of 1991, the Linux kernel source code was released under a very restrictive non-GPL license requiring that the source code must always be available, and that no money could be made off of it. Several months later Linus changed the copyright to the GPL, or GNU General Public License, under which the kernel source code has remained ever since. Thanks to the GPL, any source code derived from the Linux kernel source code must also be freely released under the GPL. This has led many to question the legality of 'binary only' kernel modules, for which no source code is released. Linux creator Linus Torvalds talks about this issue in a recent thread on the lkml."

I love this guy.

[the gnat]

Linus really calls it the way he sees it, doesn't he?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed, and/or your reading skills are deficient.

You are a weasel, and you are trying to make the world look the way you want it to, rather than the way it _is_.

Wow. I hope someday I'm enough of a badass to be able to flame people like that and get away with it. (That said, it's particularly impressive how Linus can fling these barbs at people and still come off as a reasonable guy, unlike quite a few open-source "leaders". Having a sense of humor seems to help quite a bit.)

Another copyright defense.

[ron_ivi]

My driver is a parody [publaw.com] of their driver. :-)

this one is good!

[aLEczapKA]

Linus: "So you can run the kernel and create non-GPL'd programs while running it to your hearts content. You can use it to control a nuclear submarine, and that's totally outside the scope of the license (but if you do, please note that the license does not imply any kind of warranty or similar)."

Re:Pragmatism

[Spoing]

Imagine a future where you install your core Linux kernel, then download a ton of different binary modules from different websites, have to hunt in the forums to mix-and-match the right versions, and end up having bugs nobody won't fix ? Think about it, that's what you want when you allow "pragmatism".

Hey! That would make Windows user feel right at home! LET'S DO IT!!!! (leaps behind flame-proof barrier)

Re:Pragmatism

[ashridah]

There are for example [...] the famous nvidia drivers which work only on i386.

Shenanigans! SHENANIGANS!

(Example following)

$ ncftp download1.nvidia.com
Connecting to 216.228.115.24...
Logging in...
Anonymous user logged in.
Logged in to download1.nvidia.com.
ncftp / > ls
[...]
XFree86/
[...]
ncftp / > cd XFree86
ncftp /XFree86 > ls
FreeBSD-x86/ Linux-x86/ [...] Linux-ia64/ Linux-x86-64/ [...]
ncftp /XFree86 >

There you go!
ia64 is not i386, regardless of what RISC loving zealots will scream about, and x86-64 is not i386 either.
and what's more, FreeBSD is also not linux.

I declare your statement partially false on two fronts!

ashridah

Re:Pragmatism

[martin-boundary]

"Three processors ought to be enough for everyone".

Re:I love this guy.

[armando_wall3]

That line:

You are a weasel, and you are trying to make the world look the way you want it to, rather than the way it _is_.

made me laugh, cause sometimes Linus tries to make the world look the way he wants it to. An example is his Kernel Coding Styles [ucdavis.edu], where he states things like:

Heretic people all over the world have claimed that this inconsistency is ... well ... inconsistent, but all right-thinking people know that (a) K&R are right and (b) K&R are right.

Re:Another copyright defense.

[TheSHAD0W]

/* non-ATI hardware detection */
if (!startswith(hwid, "ATI") {
cout "You stupid Englishman! I wave my private parts at your aunties!";
return(FALSE);
}