[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Linux Kernel developers disuss possible Mosix violation of GPL
I found this an interesting discussion of how the Linux
Kernel developers sort through the problems of growing
the platform in conjunction with commercial developers,
and keeping the platform open. Jamie
-----------------------------------
Subject: WARNING: GPL Content!
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:08:27 -0500
From: Matthew Benjamin <MBenjamin@comshare.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO <am-info@essential.org>
At the risk of re-commencing the dead horse beating ritual, I found this
Linux kernel list (found excerpted on Kernel Traffic this week), to be
very
interesting.
Note the reasonable tone taken by a guy named...Richard Stallman,
towards
the end.
Matt
------------------------
13.[OFFTOPIC] Potential GPL violation of Linux
kernel by MOSIX?
An unknown person posted about the recent slashdot discussion of
how
MOSIX might be violating the GPL
by distributing binary modules that require kernel modifications.
Alan Cox replied, "I consider it a violation of the GPL. Its not
like
OSS sound where the module interface is
simply used (that is viewing the _existing_ exported symbol set as
an
API) they actually hack all the code up
to call their modules in ways it was never intended to and then to
cripple the resulting code so it only works
across a group of 6 machines." He added, "Linus has sent them a
polite
explanation of his viewpoint. We
shall now see what happens the friendly way. Hopefully there will
be no
"after that"."
Tim Smith objected, "I don't think your emphasis on _existing_
interfaces in the OSS case is legally relevant,
because GPL allows kernel development to fork. If someone wants to
fork
off and go in a different direction,
with new exported symbols and new interfaces for modules, that's
their
right, as long as they release their
kernel sources and GPL their kernel changes. That the reason for
the
fork is to better support some
proprietary kernel module doesn't seem to be legally relevant."
But Alan came back with:
"Its not GPL thats quite the issue here, its as Mike says a bit
more
complicated. The GPL itself is quite clear
and the answer is "no".
The two fun questions are
1.Linus gave specific additional permissions to people for some
binary modules with restrictions. Does
Mosix violate his agreement with them
2.Since Linus owns <10% of the code do his additional
permissions
mean anything anyway ?"
Tim replied:
"There's a fun question that comes before those: 0. Is any
additional
permission even needed for binary
modules?
Considered from a copyright point of view, I don't see any
difference
between kernel modules and
applications. From a copyright point of view, in both cases, you've
got
some blob of code that makes use of
exported services of some other blob of code. Copyright law is not
going to care that one runs in user mode
and one runs in kernel mode, or that they run in separate address
spaces. It will just care whether or not one
blob contains copyrighted material from the other blob.
Just as I don't need Microsoft's permission to write Windows
drivers
and distribute them under any license I
wish, I don't think I actually need anyone's permission to write
Linux
modules and distribute them under any
terms I wish, assuming, in both the Microsoft and Linux cases, that
I'm
careful not to use any code from
system header files that might lead to Microsoft or Linux code in
my
object files.
Things are going to get really interesting if/when component-based
software becomes the norm. Over in the
Windows world, MS seems to be turning everything into collections
of
OLE2 components. Perhaps the same
will happen with CORBA and Linux. It is not clear that GPL works
well
in a componentized world--it seems
to be somewhat of a relic from a time when applications were
monolithic
and statically linked, running under
proprietary kernels."
At this point they both agreed that the discussion should be taken
to a
different list.
Mike A. Harris started another thread, with Subject: MOSIX and
kernel
mods. He said:
"My current understanding is that MOSIX is a NON-GPL binary only
module, and that the modifications to
the kernel that they make, and that are needed for proper MOSIX
operation *ARE* GPL'd.
This opens up some "Gates" IMHO. So, if someone wants to hack a
feature
into the kernel, and it requires
kernel source modification, they can just GPL their kernel source
mods,
and then put whatever they like into
binary modules?
IMHO, this SUCKS. I say, *NO* thanks. Then Microsoft can put a big
10Mb
GPL'd mod in the kernel that
provides what is needed for their external embrace and extend addon
binary modules, and we are
FUCKED.
I'm getting sick of seeing stuff like this, and loopholes found in
our
licensing mechanisms. I love free software,
but every day that passes by, I'm feeling more and more in
agreement
with Richard Stallman. Perhaps RMS
is much more visionary than he gets credit for."
Richard Stallman wrote: "I'm not surprised that non-free kernel
modules
have resulted in a big
loophole--because the idea is a loophole in the first place. They
enable a kernel to support more hardware, at
the cost of not being entirely free anymore.
The whole package becomes "more useful" by implicitly altering the
goal
(a free operating system). Now, if
we want to achieve that goal, we have a big effort on our hands.
Linus, if he wants to, could begin closing the loophole, by
attaching
more restrictive statements about
non-free modules to future kernel releases. There are many
different
ways this could be done, to close the
loophole either more or less."
--
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030,
by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org