Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Paul Jarc wrote:
> 
> caftgr@netscape.net (CafTgr) wrote:
> > b) A kernel module, developed in-house
> 
> According to Linux, 

Torvalds, I guess.

>                     kernel modules are derivatives of the kernel, and
> so must not be distributed except under the GPL. 

That's utter bullshit. Just like his other crapola on GPL_ONLY 
stuff: "As it is, the kernel requires modules to tell it their 
license, and if you lie to it, that is not only potentially 
violating the DMCA, it's also likely a crime under regular 
copyright laws (ie you are knowingly misrepresenting a license 
- in this case the license of the binary part, and that's not 
legal either)." Sega vs. Accolade, to begin with.

>                                                  He might be wrong,

Well, watching him playing "gray area, be afraid" game from 
time to time on lkml is quite entertaining.

> but you could only prove it by going to court, which you'd probably
> like to avoid.  So to be safe, put your module under the GPL.

Yeah. And also buy a ton or so of "SCO IP license"... to be 
safe.

regards,
alexander.