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

[Jamie Lokier]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 23:48, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > I'd get to define "the OS" so that is not a problem :) You could
> 
> The GPL is smarter than that
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
> the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable."

I am talking about replacing the kernel (and compiler as it
happens)... those _are_ the major components of the operating system
which fall under that exception.  So, if we were splitting hairs over
the wording, it would come down to whether the other major components
"accompany the executable", where the executable is the GPL module.

This is further complicated because those GPL modules need not be
distributed in binary form anyway, they could be compiled at run time
from source, so there is no executable to speak of.  More corner case
fun :)

Morally, as someone pointed it it comes down to how much giving back
is done, and how the authors of the code in question feel.  Of course
one person's belief that something constitutes giving is not the same
as another's.

-- Jamie