On Jan 26, 12:43 pm, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > That aside, you missed his subtle change of subject - the original author > was talking about modules external to the kernel (presumably not derived > from it) and therefor not counted as "kernel code". He shifted the topic to > "kernel code" (which is covered by the kernel license, eg gpl.)
It's debatable that any change of topic was made - we are after all still talking about code that runs in kernel mode. But if there was an intent to change the topic from the OP's kernel module to some other parts of the kernel, then the comment would have been off-topic to the point of being useless. Obviously people disagree about the desirability of permitting binary- only modules, and that's fine. The fact remains that they have long existed, and when done in the grudgingly accepted manner their developers have not been constantly finding themselves fighting infringement suits. The fact also remains that the customs of what is and isn't allowed, and the whole export symbol GPL thing, are more of an attempt to engineer a livable compromise than a court-validated litmus test of what is an isn't a derivative work under copyright law. -- unsubscribe: [email protected] website: http://groups.google.com/group/android-kernel
