Jon Pruente wrote:
On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
Linus is wrong. He's not the only copyright holder, either.
Linus can be wrong all he wants, who cares? Have you ever read the GPL? Only derivative works, or in simple terms "a modification of the original", are required to perpetuate the GPL. *If*, by some absurd stretch of logic, you claim that *any* kernel driver, even if created outside of the kernel source tree, is a derivative work, then the technicality is still easily overcome.
It has been explained repeatedly on the LKML. To circumvent the licensing issue, a developer need only write a "wrapper" kernel module that then interfaces with other, non-GPLed programs/code. Remember, the GPL does not dictate what your derivitive work is allowed to do while running. As long as the non-GPLed work can be compiled independently of any GPLed code (rather trivial to make happen), then the GPL can not be forced on it.
All you end up doing is giving everyone a headache, and discouraging widespread adoption of your code.