Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux: the GPL and Binary Modules

Posted by michael on from the how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When first made available in September of 1991, the Linux kernel source code was released under a very restrictive non-GPL license requiring that the source code must always be available, and that no money could be made off of it. Several months later Linus changed the copyright to the GPL, or GNU General Public License, under which the kernel source code has remained ever since. Thanks to the GPL, any source code derived from the Linux kernel source code must also be freely released under the GPL. This has led many to question the legality of 'binary only' kernel modules, for which no source code is released. Linux creator Linus Torvalds talks about this issue in a recent thread on the lkml."

10 of 657 comments (clear)

  1. Linux linkiing analogy by rubypossum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I'm wrong here but perhaps this is a way to look at it. If I wrote a story that was derived from the LOTR then it would not be a derived work in the legal sense it would be copyright by me. Although I'd have to get permission to use the trademarked names etc. Isn't this a bit like the linux kernel issue? The module is not directly derived from the kernel it is an extension that uses the hooks that were created in the previous "story". Maybe I'm on crack here....

    --
    I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:Linux linkiing analogy by rubypossum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand... if I were to take chepter 5 from the LOTR and change it a little bit, include it in my story and then publish it then it would be a derived work. Just like a company taking net/socket.c, modifying it, then including it in their own module and not distributing the source.

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    2. Re:Linux linkiing analogy by adrianbaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that it's okay for (say) nVidia to distribute a binary driver module (because it is new to the kernel rather than modifying it) but the bits that may require kernel modification or that hook directly into the kernel (their wrapper) do need to be open?
      Sounds fair enough to me.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    3. Re:Linux linkiing analogy by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The nVida drivers are the clasic test case for this...

      Generally, if I sit down with Linux and write "hello world" using standard C calls and compile with normal methods, that's mine and not a derivitive work at all. The problem comes with drivers such as nVidia's. They are not just "windows" drivers with a wrapper for linux. They get into the system and re-route system API calls, much about with non-standard kernel features and the like. And that's the problem with "bianary" modules. The problem with nVidia's approach is that it's hard to tell where their drivers start and the kernel begins...heck, they could rewrite half the kernel and simply override it in their module, it would be hard to fiugure out for normal users...it's that poteitial for abuse that is the cause of such arguments.

      On nVidia's defence though, Ther was talk for 2.6 about removing the API calls they try to legally use in favor of others that would require 100% GPL code. That's also a problem because certian vocal parts of the community are actively trying to make the current scheme too "sour" for compaines like nVidia to publish their code. On a side note, there are certian things nVidia CAN'T publish if they have to use GPL! Much of the hardware they build is "patented" from outside sources...they would get into IBM/SCO style lawsuits...but without any cause to defend themselves! That leaves them [and us] with bianary drivers--or NO drivers.

      My opinion right now is that Linus is sticking his head in the sand on this issue...other stuff I've read he seems to fully support how nVidia is working, but then allows changes to APIs that clearly theaten that way of working???? This IS a key issue with linux...If companies can't use proprietary, binary modules to protect their/others IP, then Linux will never be a truly "first class" OS. What's needed is for the community to "standardize" the rules [make them just a bit more attractive to business?]...and stop the FSF and such from "legal creeping" against the people who go out of their way RIGHT NOW to support Linux.

  2. Linux driver model doesn't help by Vanders · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This "grey area" exists because there is no clearly defined boundary defining the seperation between the kernel and the drivers. Modules are parts of the kernel which have not been linked yet. When they're required, they are loaded and linked with the kernel.

    The fact that Linus states that there is no exception must worry a lot of companies out there who are producing binary drivers for Linux E.g. nVidia, or SciTech (Who started the LKML thread, after all!) Are nVidia's kernel modules under the GPL? If the possibility exists that they are then I would expect them to suddenly get cold feet over Linux.

    If the kernel had a proper boundary with E.g. a set of API's that the kernel and drivers can use to communicate with each other then it would help to solve the issue of what is and isn't "the kernel". For example in Syllable drivers are ELF images which are loaded by the kernel ELF loader. The drivers are loaded under the kernels memory space but there is a very well defined API between the two, and a very clear seperation between them. Under this model I can argue that the kernel is actually being linked to the driver, so the driver can be under any licence while the kernel remains under the GPL. There is no "cross pollenation" between the driver and the kernel. Which is a good thing IMHO, if it avoids issues like the ones being raised on the LKML.

    --
    Syllable : It's an Operating System
  3. Re:Pragmatism by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When binary modules are allowed it doesn't help linux in any way....

    Just look at the nvidia drivers: The only thing you get are kiddies yelling that nvidia has such great linux support. Meanwhile linux didn't get any better from it, kernel developers get lots of bug reports caused by the nvidia black box (One of the reasons the 'tainted' flag was introduced), I still can't use the nvidia cards on platform not-quite-obscure-nividia-just-didnt-bother-compil ing-their-driver-for-it, and most importantly you don't know what the driver is doing on your system (its a black box afterall)

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  4. Re:lines have to be drawn by jusdisgi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Er, yeah, that's a little warped.

    It might make sense to take that position, if such a thing as a "module vendor" existed. As it happens, it doesn't, and no one is out trying to sell binary modules for Linux. The creators of binary modules are *hardware vendors* and they are "contributing" by making their hardware compatible with the free system.

    This is not parasitic; if they want, they can just not bother, and you can just not use that hardware in Linux. Let's not forget, it's not like you wrote the driver; why would you want to keep people from making their hardware usable on your system? If a manufacturer says "well, sorry, I want to support linux, but not if it means letting the competition get a sneak peak at this crazy technology in my drivers" you would just say, "ok, parasite, we don't need your stupid hardware."

    When the manufacturer in question is a leading producer of video boards, such fanaticism is extremely foolish.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  5. Re:Pragmatism by starsong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine a future where you install your core Linux kernel, then download a ton of different binary modules from different websites, have to hunt in the forums to mix-and-match the right versions, and end up having bugs nobody won't fix....

    We have that under Windows! They're called "drivers."

  6. Think Back by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My second printer was a Citizen 120-D 9-pin mono dot matrix, and it was also very Epson-compatible. It had a beautiful programmer's manual replete with examples of how to access each feature, from simple double width text to high-density image graphics, and even went so far as to provide timing details for the Centronics interface. {Hey, you might be plugging the thing into some device of your own construction}. It was even known for owners of EPROM burners to patch the charsets to match certain manufacturers' non-strict interpretation of ASCII {the BBC model B, for example, had a pound sign at CHR$(96) instead of a backtick, so it could keep the comment mark at CHR$(35) - a comment in BASIC is denoted by REM, but the # was used to specify immediate mode in assembler}.

    Compare and contrast that with today ..... you get a Quick Start guide which says "Plug the printer into your computer. Do exactly what Windows tells you to do" and a huge manual, replete this time not with useful programming information but with dire warnings about attempting to do anything "unauthorised" with the printer, and it probably illegal to examine the printout with a magnifier to see how the fonts are made up.

    IMHO the lawful owner of an instrument has the right to know everything about that instrument. My property can, by definition, contain no secrets from me {though I might reasonably be bound to keep any secret I discover}. It's time that this was enshrined into law. If you can't handle the concept of people knowing how to write drivers for your hardware then you perhaps shouldn't be selling it. Mandatory Full Disclosure would put an end to this argument once and for all.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  7. Re:Pessimists are mind-killers by jlar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You clearly missed the point in my signature. It has nothing to do with pessimism. Karl Popper (famous natural philosopher) wrote a book after WW2 called "The Open Society and its enemies" as a defence of democracy and a critique of totalitarian rule (including fascism, communism and various religious ways to rule).

    In the book he argues that democracy has an incremental approach to society building whereas e.g. communism (and political islam for that sake) has a "revolutionary" approach. The point is that those who promise us paradise on Earth after we have made the society in whatever way they would like us to - they have always ended up giving us hell on Earth (Soviet Union, Iran, Afghanistan and so on).