3 ms·
If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered no
by temac 4y ago
If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.
- ghaff 4y agoThe binary blobs question has never really been resolved. You'll find kernel devs and other open source community members on both sides of the issue. My sense is that most have no interest in forcing the issue. The closest (something similar) came to being forced was the VMware ESX-related GPL case but that ended up dismissed for unrelated reasons.
- teddyh 4y agoThis is not the “binary blobs” issue (which is still debated, as you say). This is the “binary kernel modules” issue, which is pretty much settled: Even though they are commonly used and distributed, the kernel can never explicitly allow it! This is what would happen if they did: https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/
- sgjohnson 4y ago> The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia. And nvidia recently decided that they actually don’t care about any of that and decided to release their sources anyway.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoThe problem is that here you are not just distributing what is possibly a derived work (the kernel modules themselves), like what NV was doing. Here you are distributing a single enduser product which contains both the actual GPL work itself (the kernel) AND the kernel modules combined in a way that's essential for the product itself (i.e. it's not "mere aggregation"). That's a much more fragile position, and I rather doubt that whether the modules are a "derived work" or not plays a role, since if anything you are violating the kernel license/distribution terms themselves.