4 ms·

Linus Torvalds: But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a d

Linus Torvalds: But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. Basically: - anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work. - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around with core code, you're derived, no question about it. * https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html Then you have things like (Open)ZFS and DTrace.

puffoflogic 4y ago
> don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. This is the key point, and it is nearly impossible for firmware blobs to depend on any OS behavior, let alone "special Linux behavior". The only way they could do so is via the open-source part, so it should be easy enough to check that.
tzs 4y ago
By that reasoning every program written to run on MS-DOS was a "derived work" of MS-DOS. Such programs were written with MS-DOS in mind, and often mucked around with fundamental internal MS-DOS behavior. Same with pre-OS X Mac. Most Mac programs were written with Mac in mind, and it was not uncommon for programs mucked around with OS code and data. What matters is how copyright law defines derivative work, and in the US that has nothing to do with whether or not your work was written with another work in mind or plays with fundamental internal behavior of another work. What matters is whether or not it incorporates copyrighted elements of another work.

puffoflogic 4y ago

> don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. This is the key point, and it is nearly impossible for firmware blobs to depend on any OS behavior, let alone "special Linux behavior". The only way they could do so is via the open-source part, so it should be easy enough to check that.

tzs 4y ago

By that reasoning every program written to run on MS-DOS was a "derived work" of MS-DOS. Such programs were written with MS-DOS in mind, and often mucked around with fundamental internal MS-DOS behavior. Same with pre-OS X Mac. Most Mac programs were written with Mac in mind, and it was not uncommon for programs mucked around with OS code and data. What matters is how copyright law defines derivative work, and in the US that has nothing to do with whether or not your work was written with another work in mind or plays with fundamental internal behavior of another work. What matters is whether or not it incorporates copyrighted elements of another work.