Building separate files for a kernel module

[Daniel.]

except if it's GPL too*

2018-04-18 12:57 GMT-03:00 Daniel. <danielhilst at gmail.com>:

> AFAIK if foo is GPL, you can't link bar to it except if it's GPL to. Doing
> so would be license breaking. If foo is not GPL, you are tainting your
> kernel and would be hard to get help with a tainted kernel.
>
> 2018-04-09 14:19 GMT-03:00 Martin Galvan <omgalvan.86 at gmail.com>:
>
>> 2018-04-05 12:02 GMT-03:00 Greg KH <greg at kroah.com>:
>> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:49:36AM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
>> >> I want my module to be DKMS-enabled, but since the 'bar' binaries
>> >> don't use anything Linux-specific I don't want to distribute the
>> >> sources for it.
>> >
>> > Hahaha, good luck, please discuss this with a lawyer as to the
>> > legalities involved.  You are on your own here.
>>
>> You're right, and I apologize if this practice is frowned upon. I just
>> assumed it wasn't since the kbuild docs mention ways for having binary
>> blobs included with kernel modules.
>>
>> Thanks for the answer.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>> https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. ..."
>   Charles Bukowski
>



-- 
“If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. ..."
  Charles Bukowski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20180418/029a1dba/attachment.html>