On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > >>
> > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
> > >>symbols to the proprietary modules?
> > >
> > >Ick, no!
> > >
> > >Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them
> > >consider doing this just as forbidden as marking your module
> > >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); when it really isn't.
> >
> > There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will
> > be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons. But it does
> > feel like circumvention of the limitations set in the kernel.
>
> It is. And as such, it is not allowed.
[snip]So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? For example, the IDE drivers use GPL symbols but the VFS does not. So anyone can write a proprietary filesystem which eventually gets around to driving the IDE layer. That is okay, but this isn't? If the trend of making everything _GPL continues, I don't see any choice for binary module vendors but to join together to develop a stable driver API and build it as a GPL/BSD module. Do the same API for BSD systems to prove modules using it are not GPL derived. Watch Greg foam. It'd be fun. -- Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
