4 ms·
> Modules (precisely speaking about Linux) shall be open-source upon sale! Linux's interpretation of the GPL allows closed source and proprietary modules (prov
by mlyle 3y ago
> Modules (precisely speaking about Linux) shall be open-source upon sale!
Linux's interpretation of the GPL allows closed source and proprietary modules (providing you conform to a somewhat limited set of interfaces).
There's a lot of closed source binary lumps out there for different hardware.
- teddyh 3y ago> Linux's interpretation of the GPL allows closed source and proprietary modules Not officially, IIUC. If they were officially allowed, this is what would happen: <https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/>
- mlyle 3y agohttp://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.... Linus said it was okay long ago; that's as close to official as one can get. Later his views became more nuanced, but still largely authorize binary-only drivers. It may still be legally problematic (as there are many contributors who may be able to make a claim); but 28 years of policy precedent make such an attempt at enforcement difficult. There's all the EXPORT_SYMBOL/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL infrastructure for this exact reason.
- teddyh 3y ago> Linus said it was okay long ago You and I have a very different understanding of the very long text at that link.
- mlyle 3y ago> > long ago > understanding of the very long text You have the original statement in 1995, which is nice and short. You clipped from my statement: > > Later his views became more nuanced Waffling starts in 2002. IMO, the fact that there's an interface maintained for the explicit purpose of marking symbols for non-GPL compatible code makes it pretty damn difficult to enforce.