> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:07:41PM -0600, Vadim Klishko wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:37 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:40:32AM +0100, James Chapman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is the optional "library" proprietary (binary only)? If so, think
>> >> carefully about GPL implications. Adding a simple GPL driver to expose
>> >> proprietary hooks isn't good...
>> >
>> Yes, that was exactly the idea.
>>
>> > It's not only, "not good", it's flat out illegal and violates the
>> > license of the kernel. Do not do this at all if you are thinking you
>> > can keep something from being released under the GPL.
>> >
>> I thought there was a legal way of doing it as described here:
>>
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>
> The kernel is not a "system library", nor does it interact with one at
> all.
>
> Also note that the kernel is covered under GPLv2, not v3, which is the
> description of most of the answers on that page.
>
> There is no way to create a "GPL Condom" to protect your code in the
> kernel from being released under the GPLv2, sorry, that just is not
> possible. For lots of prior art on this, and lots of failed legal
> attempts to do this, please see the Samba group, there is a long history
> of them prevailing on this topic.
>
