diff options
| author | Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> | 2015-10-25 21:00:20 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> | 2015-10-25 21:00:20 +0100 |
| commit | fca59bea770346cf1c1f9b0e00cb48a61b44a8f3 (patch) | |
| tree | a2011270df48d3501892ac1a56015c8be57e8a7d /2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt | |
import of old now defunct presentation slides svn repo
Diffstat (limited to '2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt | 10 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt b/2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db45e6d --- /dev/null +++ b/2007/gpl-compliance-tw2007/gpl-compliance/mgp00009.txt @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +How to (not) use GPL Software +Derivative Works + +Binary-only kernel modules +In-kernel proprietary code (binary kernel modules) are hard to claim GPL compliant +Case-by-case analysis required, as the level of integration into the GPL licensed kernel code depends on particular case +IBM is in the process of getting rid of all binary-only kernel modules. There are exceptions, but they are very clear ones (such as a filesystem port to linux, where the filesystem code already existed under another OS) +There is no general acceptance or tolerance to binary-only kernel modules in the Linux (development) community. Not even Linus himself has ever granted an exception for such modules! + + |