from the libertarian newspaper

[Bradley Hook]

Jon Pruente wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>> Linus is wrong. He's not the only copyright holder, either.

Linus can be wrong all he wants, who cares? Have you ever read the GPL? 
Only derivative works, or in simple terms "a modification of the 
original", are required to perpetuate the GPL. *If*, by some absurd 
stretch of logic, you claim that *any* kernel driver, even if created 
outside of the kernel source tree, is a derivative work, then the 
technicality is still easily overcome.

It has been explained repeatedly on the LKML. To circumvent the 
licensing issue, a developer need only write a "wrapper" kernel module 
that then interfaces with other, non-GPLed programs/code. Remember, the 
GPL does not dictate what your derivitive work is allowed to do while 
running. As long as the non-GPLed work can be compiled independently of 
any GPLed code (rather trivial to make happen), then the GPL can not be 
forced on it.

All you end up doing is giving everyone a headache, and discouraging 
widespread adoption of your code.