4 ms·
> It could never be licensed in a way that prevented the patch set or the resulting patched kernel source/binaries from being covered and distributed under the
by mnarayan01 9y ago
> It could never be licensed in a way that prevented the patch set or the resulting patched kernel source/binaries from being covered and distributed under the GPLv2. If that were the case, the kernel would effectively not be covered by the GPL at all.
Is this true? I would think that as long as your "new" code is sufficiently distinct from the stuff you're replacing, you'd be fine distributing a non-GPL patch (at least if it's e.g. purely positional to elide context related issues). The result of applying the patch would not be distributable, but I'd think the patch itself would be fine.
- jordigh 9y agoThe FSF's position that I have heard is that these modules, e.g. the nvidia module, is a GPL violation that the Linux maintainers have no desire to prosecute. In the FSF's opinion it's likely that a judge would say that user-does-the-link is subterfuge to try to get around copyleft. On the other hand, seeing how everyone turns their back on you when you do try to prosecute GPL violations (e.g. SFC and the VMWare GPL lawsuit), I can see why the Linux maintainers don't try to enforce their copyleft. It certainly doesn't help that the Linux foundation is almost entirely run by companies that do not want the GPL to have teeth.
- peterwwillis 9y agoDistribute changes, it's all GPL. Don't distribute changes, it's whatever you want it to be. This does not change depending on how "distinct" your change is.
- cyphar 9y agoI'd argue that the code is always GPL, it's just that if you don't distribute it then the GPL doesn't have any restrictions.