Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel

[Jamie Lokier]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 23:18, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > If I load a Java class into a Java VM, that class is executing in the
> > VM's "userspace", even though both the class and VM execute together
> > in the underlying kernel's userspace.  If I load an Emacs Lisp library
> > into Emacs, that's ok too in the same way.
> 
> Thats not actually clear either. The kernel contains the clear syscall
> message for good reasons. The GPL itself talks about stuff that comes
> normally with the OS very carefully for similar reasons.

I'd get to define "the OS" so that is not a problem :) You could
expect an equivalent "clear syscall message", although that is more
problematic to define in an environment where there is no static code
being executed.

> You see there isn't any difference between an interpreter hitting
> 	Java bytecode 145
> and a function call of 
> 	perform_java_bytecode(145);
> 
> Indeed the JVM may turn one into the other.

There are a few GPL'd Java programs around (I've written a couple
myself), and no complaints about the above transformation so far.

> If you think that is bad remember that the DMCA and other rulings have
> held shrink wrap licenses can sometimes overrule US style "fair use", so
> your JVM in JITting code may be making you liable for a license
> violation for some applications.

I was going to write:

   I think you've made a big jump in logic there.  I sympathise, as I too
   might have to quit computing if European law follows the US, but I
   don't agree with the big leap you just made.

But then (<shudder>) I realised you are right.  The kind of kernel
which I'm envisioning would be capable of cracking open some kinds of
protected application automatically, as a mere side effect.  (It has
powerful DWIM semantics :) And that would make _something_ illegal to
write - I'm not sure what, though.

-- Jamie