Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Since this is a linux kernel module, the GPL makes the most > sense for this. ... > Would it be possible to release this under a GPL + exception licence, or > something such ?
That is the usual advice for *applications* that have to include non-GPL parts. However, such a composite license is *not GPL-compatible*. So kernels built with code under this license would be undistributable. [However, I confess ignorance about the actual working of loadable kernel modules. If it is possible to usefully distribute a .o module that the user can plug into, say, any 2.4.x kernel compiled with general module support, then the GPL compatibilty may matter less]. > Also, i guess i cannot put a proprietary closed source stuff into > even non-free, without at least a permission to redistribute it. True. > I will encounter i guess the same kind of problems when they move the > proprietary part to userspace, i guess. That is where it gets funny. If "moving to userspace" means that the kernel is extended with an API whose sole purpose is to allow that particular proprietary code to attach itself, a good argument can be made the proprietary thingy is still part of the "modified work as a whole", such that the GPL conditions on GPL-freedom still applies to it. -- Henning Makholm "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."
