On Tuesday 23 January 2007 00:31, Jon Pruente wrote:
On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Linus is wrong. He's not the only copyright holder, either.
Be that as it may, he still has no say over GPL code in userland. But, you also did post that "Linux specifically excludes userland from the GPL obligations." So, if it is stated that the userland is not bound and it must make calls to GPL APIs to talk to the kernel, then why aren't modules that make calls to GPL APIs in the kernel clear too? From what I've read they should be treated the same, which ever way is chosen.
1) Linux isn't a microkernel. Linux is monolithic. It is a single program. Modules are part of the program that can be disabled or loaded at runtime. 2) The GPL terms apply to Linux and any Linux-specific APIs that are not deemed userland (as userland has a specific exception). Anyone copying/deriving from the internal API must legally abide by its copyright.
Much of the Linux API is GPL code. I'm sure we all know that. The userspace exception applies to the kernel, not GPL components running on top of the kernel.
Linux *is* the kernel. libc is not Linux, and is a standard API with multiple implementations. GNU libc is LGPL, not GPL. Your claim is without basis.
There is more in a distro than libc for software to talk to. Even so, it still boils down to the userspace exception. It still isn't clear, in terms of the license, if the userspace is really clear. AFAICT it's not.
Code that is/becomes part of Linux is clearly not userspace.
You're still missing the point that there is a legitimate use of WINE when the program running is GPL-compatible. For example, VirtualDub. VirtualDub is GPL, running with WINE's LGPL API, running on glibc (LGPL) and X11 (compatible). Everything here is linking happily.
But, I never said there wasn't a legitimate use. We can take this argument to where DRM is ok because it does have some legitimate uses.
DRM is illegitimate use of an encryption chip. Illegit use cannot have some legit use.
There's that whole related debate over if teh kernel should actively block non-GPL code, which would be a form of DRM in itself.
It would be DRM just as much as GPL is copyright. It's abusing copyright/DRM to reverse its effect.
It also makes "tolerable" exceptions for kernel modules.
It doesn't, never has, and never will (legal impossibility).
I guess the "exceptions" part is at issue. Kernel modules that are not derived works are allowed,
Kernel modules are always derived works, and there is no exceptions for them in any form.
but I'm still wondering if the translation layer between closed code and the GPL is supposed to be open. Without seeing the nVidia source we don't know if they are going straight for the kernel API with new code, or if they are merely fine tuning an abstraction/translation layer to an existing driver.
Irrelevant. Their wrapper would need to work against a GPL-compatible "blob-piece" in order for it to be valid. For example, if they released the code to a stripped down blob, they might get into the grey-area.