There is a note at the top of www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING, > but that states “user programs”, which would clearly not apply to > kernel modules. > > Could you clarify in writing what the exception precisely states?
Well, there really is no exception. However, copyright law obviously hinges on the definition of “derived work”, and as such anything can always be argued on that point. I personally consider anything a “derived work” that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux (i.e., it is not acceptable to make a small piece of GPL-code as a hook for the larger piece), as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs “help” from the main kernel. Similarly, I consider anything that has intimate knowledge about kernel internals to be a derived work. What is left in the gray area tends to be clearly separate modules: code that had a life outside Linux from the beginning, and that do something self-contained that doesn’t really have any impact on the rest of the kernel. A device driver that was originally written for something else, and that doesn’t need any but the standard UNIX read/write kind of interfaces, for example. > Issue #2 > ======== > I’ve found statements attributed t
Related Questions
- There is a note at the top of www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING, > but that states "user programs", which would clearly not apply to > kernel modules. > > Could you clarify in writing what the exception precisely states?
- How do I display information about loaded kernel modules under Sun Solaris UNIX operating system?
- Will Btrfs be in the mainline Linux Kernel?
