In the case of Linux, Linus has a public position [1] that:
* A kernel module is run by the kernel, not incorporated in it,
* A kernel module only uses LGPL interfaces, so full GPL compliance shouldn't be necessary,
* Binary modules should be legal (though he doesn't like them), and
* Projects (like filesystems developed for other platforms) with their own life outside of Linux shouldn't be required to re-license if they clearly weren't based on Linux.
I know Linus doesn't represent all kernel developers, but his opinion should carry a lot of weight.
The SFConservancy is just practicing GPL overreach here, and is rattling a saber in hopes that Oracle blinks. Ubuntu has been distributing NVidia binary kernel modules for years and this hasn't resulted in a lawsuit, so it seems like an empty threat.
[1] http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules....
* A kernel module is run by the kernel, not incorporated in it,
* A kernel module only uses LGPL interfaces, so full GPL compliance shouldn't be necessary,
* Binary modules should be legal (though he doesn't like them), and
* Projects (like filesystems developed for other platforms) with their own life outside of Linux shouldn't be required to re-license if they clearly weren't based on Linux.
I know Linus doesn't represent all kernel developers, but his opinion should carry a lot of weight.
The SFConservancy is just practicing GPL overreach here, and is rattling a saber in hopes that Oracle blinks. Ubuntu has been distributing NVidia binary kernel modules for years and this hasn't resulted in a lawsuit, so it seems like an empty threat.
[1] http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules....