Kernel source

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 09:29 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 08:22 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > sure; I'd not call that a link kernel module though..
> 
> The kernel module _is_ the GPL portion _statically_linked_ with the NDIS
> object code. 

That's an "issue" if that's the case.

First of all Linus has clearly stated that the kernel is licensed under
the GPL without any exceptions. (And he couldn't make exceptions even if
he wanted to; there's many other copyright owners)

The GPL in short has basically 2 parts that matter for this case, clause
2 and clause 3.

Clause 3 is about derived works, which is the most gray area, and seems
to be the bit that you're talking about (eg "it's also for BSD and
windows so I claim it's not a derived work of Linux" and this is the
case where Linus has said that if a part of a module started for another
OS that he didn't consider *that part* a derived work normally). When
something becomes a derived work is up to the judge/jury in question
most likely, and depends also a bit on jurisdiction for sure; but once
something is a derived work of the kernel, the GPL controls it for
sure. 

Clause 2 is about including the GPL work in a bigger work (say a CD or a
distro or combining 2 object files statically linked into a bigger
file). A lawyer will tell you the fine print but it basically comes down
that the GPL doesn't allow you to use the GPL work in a bigger work
unless the rest of the bigger work is GPL as a whole, with one
exception: The GPL also allows you to put "independent" files on the
medium. An example of this exception would be if you shipped both mysql
and oracle on the same CD. A kernel module is, in it's compiled form at
least, not independent of the kernel by any reasonable interpretation so
I doubt any lawyer who gets asked this question will approve this ;)

Now, I think you misunderstand how this stuff works because really
nobody is so stupid to do static linking to GPL stuff with non-GPL
stuff; that's the part where your lawyer will yell at you for being a
total idiot. With dynamic linking it gets a bit of a gray area (is it
"derived" if you dynamic link? Is it still independent enough to be able
to ship it in one work? That's where you have to consult your lawyer to
get any meaningful answer, which may even vary per jurisdiction :)