GPL Question
Consider this:
A subsystem that is statically built into the Linux Kernel is modified to allow the registration of a structure containing function pointers.
The function pointers corrolate to a set of functions within that subsystem.
If the new structure of pointers has been registered, the original functions will call the new functions in the structure passing all arguments and returning the return value of the new function.
With this said, if no structure has been registered, then no functionality is degraded within the kernel. Only the loss of some cpu time to check the pointers at the top of the old functions.
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
Thanks in advance,
Jason Wohlgemuth
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines · Jason Wohlgemuth
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
It would probably follow GPL, but it's pretty slimy. I won't buy it.
david
Signature · 8 lines
David Weis | "Great spirits will always encounter violent [email protected] | opposition from mediocre minds" - Einstein http://www.sjdjweis.com/ | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · Jason Wohlgemuth
Quoted 5 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
It would probably follow GPL, but it's pretty slimy. I won't buy it.
It depends primarily if the module depends on the code which is GPL. Its all a rather unclear area.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
Consult a Copyright/'Intellectual Property' lawyer. I wouldnt ask a lawyer to write a kernel driver, I would suggest not asking kernel hackers to do law 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 14 lines · Jason Wohlgemuth
Consider this:
A subsystem that is statically built into the Linux Kernel is modified to allow the registration of a structure containing function pointers.
The function pointers corrolate to a set of functions within that subsystem. If the new structure of pointers has been registered, the original functions will call the new functions in the structure passing all arguments and returning the return value of the new function.
With this said, if no structure has been registered, then no functionality is degraded within the kernel. Only the loss of some cpu time to check the pointers at the top of the old functions.
Quoted 7 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
Thanks in advance,
Jason Wohlgemuth
the api of the module would be a reimplementation of a GPL'd api (the function names may have changed, but the base behaviors must be equivalent)
so the question in simple terms might phrased as:
is the API under GPL, or is it the code or are both?
I think the answer is both.
Signature · 12 lines
/*------------------------------------------------** ** Mark Salisbury | Mercury Computer Systems ** ** [email protected] | ** **------------------------------------------------** ** "WYGIWYD - What You Get Is What You Deserve" ** **------------------------------------------------*/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 11 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 8 lines · Jason Wohlgemuth
Quoted 5 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
It would probably follow GPL, but it's pretty slimy. I won't buy it.
It depends primarily if the module depends on the code which is GPL. Its all a rather unclear area.
Legally, I think this is probably unclear. But, I have my own, personal standard I use for this.
The question in my mind is one of "can it stand alone". In the example originally mentioned, the new module (let's call it the alpha module) registers function calls with the old module (let's call it beta).
Now, the question in my mind is this: Is alpha a replacement for beta? It certainly sounds like it. But it depends of what/how many functions are being overridden. Are there other functions from beta which are used by alpha (either as above alpha or below it)? What are these replacement functions trying to do? If you're using an allready existing abstraction layer, then you're probably okay... but if you're really inventing a new abstraction layer, then you're probably not okay.
I guess what I'm saying is this: It all comes down to intent for me. Yeah, that's a lousy standard to use, especially in a courtroom. But that's what I really care about in the end.
Matt
Signature · 6 lines
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected] Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver We can customize our colonels. -- Tux User Friendly, 12/1/1998
Somewhat different GPL Question
In reply to David WeisIf I use some GPL'd code and make calls from my software to the GPL'd code, do I need to make *my* code available? Or would I only have to make available any changes to the GPL'd code?
Section 2.b of the GPL seems to indicate that I need to make the source for my entire executable available if it incorporates any GPL'd source, and that I cannot charge for the software, only for its distribution. Is this correct?
Thanks,
Chris
Signature · 8 lines
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Somewhat different GPL Question
Quoted 8 lines · Christopher Friesen
If I use some GPL'd code and make calls from my software to the GPL'd code, do I need to make *my* code available? Or would I only have to make available any changes to the GPL'd code?
Section 2.b of the GPL seems to indicate that I need to make the source for my entire executable available if it incorporates any GPL'd source, and that I cannot charge for the software, only for its distribution. Is this correct?
It depends.
If you're making interprocess calls to call the GPL code, I suspect you won't have to make your code GPL.
OTOH, if you /link/ against a GPL shared library, you will have to GPL the source of your program (that is, you'll have to give it to the people who receive the binary from you).
Mind that lots of the "system" libraries are under the somewhat more free LPGL...
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 5 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 4 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own
some rights to every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
Read the fine print...
*runs like crazy*
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 5 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
In fact, since you call the Windows API by linking against Windows libraries (kernel32.dll etc), Microsoft have as much right to dictate the licensing of Windows apps as the FSF has to require apps linked against GPLed code to be GPLed. (IMO, neither has any such right; of course, given the spate of recent laws we've seen, I wouldn't put any faith in a legal system to reach the "right" decision...)
In this particular case - just communicating with GPLed code - the answer is no, you are not required to impose GPL restrictions on your users, you can use a free license instead (or a proprietary one, if you really want...)
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 2 lines
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
As US copyright law stands of the last few days Microsoft are entitled to require a magic constant is passed in one register to 'unlock' an API syscall. If you disassemble code to find that constant you could be jailed.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own
some rights to every piece of software that uses the Windows API.Read the fine print...
*runs like crazy*
Extremely true. You'll find the MS C library covers this in detail. You'll also famously find the microsoft sdk for generating paperclip like horrors actually forbids you using it for the purpose of making things derogatory to MS etc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Somewhat different GPL Question
In reply to Rik van RielQuoted 6 lines
If you're making interprocess calls to call the GPL code, I suspect you won't have to make your code GPL.
OTOH, if you /link/ against a GPL shared library, you will have to GPL the source of your program (that is, you'll have to give it to the people who receive the binary from you).
The out of court settlements don't actually bear up to this interpretation and have been more about 'depending on' as a definition for linking and what is and is not an entire application.
Its one reason Im glad Linus had the sense to put an explicit statement about syscalls in the kernel COPYING file.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
All, IANAL, but:
#1: take this discussion of this list...
goto news:comp.software.licensing
read the FAQ
if you still have questions send them to mailto:[email protected]
if you don't like any of those answers, talk to a lawyer
be fair, don't steal someone else's work (don't be like Dennis)
both GPL and LGPL are clear: you change it, you publish source
if you don't want to publish source, best bet is don't change it,
just use it the way it is
you may not have the right to change anything (according to your
employer): consult a lawyer
--Brian
Quoted 30 lines · James Sutherland
Quoted 8 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 5 lines
Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module be released under the GPL?
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
every piece of software that uses the Windows API.In fact, since you call the Windows API by linking against Windows libraries (kernel32.dll etc), Microsoft have as much right to dictate the licensing of Windows apps as the FSF has to require apps linked against GPLed code to be GPLed. (IMO, neither has any such right; of course, given the spate of recent laws we've seen, I wouldn't put any faith in a legal system to reach the "right" decision...)
In this particular case - just communicating with GPLed code - the answer is no, you are not required to impose GPL restrictions on your users, you can use a free license instead (or a proprietary one, if you really want...)
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Signature · 6 lines
Brian F. G. Bidulock http://www.openss7.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 7 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
every piece of software that uses the Windows API.As US copyright law stands of the last few days Microsoft are entitled to require a magic constant is passed in one register to 'unlock' an API syscall. If you disassemble code to find that constant you could be jailed.
Anyone figuring out such a constant could post it anonymously on some website/newsgroup. Anybody abusing the constant later, including the real discoverer, can simply claim they got it from that anonymous sensation
posting. It is now common knowledge. No reverse engineering here...
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/