Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 00:08 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: 
> >>>>> "Jim" == Jim  <jep200404@example.com> writes:
> 
>     Jim> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 
>     Jim> How can one legally ship a product that links a proprietary
>     Jim> driver to a GPL kernel?

My understanding is that if the GPL kernel used a non-GPL standard
interface then a module implementing that interface would not be
derivative of that kernel.  If the driver had to be written for the
specific kernel rather then for a standard interface then it would be a
derivative.  This is one of two reasons why a number of companies want a
standard binary interface for Linux.

This is how nvidia believes they get around the GPL,  if there driver is
not developed for Linux and they use a wrapper to provide an interface
to their driver then the wrapper is derivative and GPL but the driver
isn't.  The problem is if the driver was actually developed specifically
for the wrapped Linux interface then it would still be a derivative
work.  Which is why it is all a bit of a grey area.

>     >> By putting it in a loadable module.
> 
>     Jim> Well, that's pretty easy.
> 
> Yep.  I should be careful to make it explicit though: this only
> applies to the Linux kernel (AFAIK), and only because Linus says so.

I would contend that this doesn't apply to the Linux kernel either, the
issue is whether it is a derivative work, linking is just a test for
determining that a work is derivative.

-- 
Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>