Hi It will violate GPL modules in kernel. When you load NVidia module, the kernel will warn you. ;-)
-- Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn> Network Center Dalian University of Technology, China 引用 James Su <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Then, how do you think about the relationship between the linux kernel > and close sourced modules, like NVidia kernel driver? Don't they obay > those two rules? > > Regards > James Su > > > Yong Li wrote: > > >On Thu, 1 May 2003, Yu Guanghui wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi > >> I didn't see any violation. SCIM is LGPL, the upsteam author (Su Zhe) > provides > >>the source. The upstream author also writes the pinyin module, and decides > not > >>to release the source. Pinyin module should not be considered as part of > SCIM. > >>It's a standlone program use SCIM API that releases under LGPL. > >> So the SCIM will be put in Debian main (it's LGPL and don't depend on > pinyin > >>module, there are other input modules), and pinyin will be put to > non-free. > >> > >> > > > >Here is why I think it might be a violation. > > > >As I understand it scim is under LGPL and pinyin is a loadable module. For > >this combination I'm only aware of two possibilities for the module not > >have to be released under LGPL or GPL-compatible license: > > > >1. If the aforementioned module is a standalone executable and only > >dynamically linked to the libraries of scim. when started the module must > >run in its own space. > > > >2. If the module is not a standalone executable and is dynamically loaded > by > >the main program (scim in this case). Then the main program must use fork > >and exec to invoke the module to make it a separate program. > > > >The pinyin module is obviously not a standalone executable! It is > >physically distributed as a so file. So possibility 1 is definitely out. > >All the evidences suggest that scim doesn't fork and exec the module. > >Instead it is loaded in its entirety into the main program's space. > >Function calls are made and data structures are shared between the two > >entities. So, imho, they form a single program. As such the module must be > >treated as an extension to the main program and be released under the LGPL > >or a GPL-compatible license. You might want to refer to the topic on how > >to treat the plug-ins for a GPLed program in GNU's GPL FAQ. > > > >The uniqueness about this scim situation is that it is the author himself > >who "violates" his own license. For all the years I have been following > >the open source development, this is the first time I have ever seen this > >happen. Strictly speaking it is not a violation for the author himself. > >Because from legal standpoint of view, a license such as GPL/LGPL is a > >contract from the author for the users of his program. The author himself > >is not bound by the license. However I think for everyone else, such as > >Anthony, who want to redistribute the pinyin module, it is a violation of > >the LGPL license. > > > >Of course this is only my personal opinion based on my own understanding > >of GPL/LGPL license. This is such a rare and unique case. That's why I > >think it's important, if you want to include it in debian distribution, to > >bring this up to debian-legal and hear what those experts have to say. > > > >Granted even if someone redistributes the pinyin module and violates the > >LGPL license, it's highly unlikely the author will ever pursue him/her and > > >enforce the license. After all it's the author's intension of doing so. > >So the legal risk is minimum. However this does not make it right. If this > > >is indeed a LGPL violation, I think it's a shame for the debian project to > > >put it into its distribution. > > > >Regards, > >rigel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- 欢迎使用大连理工大学web邮件系统: http://mail.dlut.edu.cn
