Very Computer

by **Ray Y. Cho** » Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:00:00

What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
Linux?

Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

How do "commercial" Linux vendors such as Caldera deal with this
issue? If Linux's GPL is too restrictive, which other OSes are
better suited to this purpose? (The FreeBSD web page seems to
indicate that they try to be less limiting in uses of their code.)

-ray

by **Mr V. Ni** » Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
> What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
> Linux?

> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

Are that that many times you'ld _need_ to distribute a custom kernel?
If you did have to, you would have to release the source to you
changes, but not to whatever program you had written that made use of
these changes.

Quote:> How do "commercial" Linux vendors such as Caldera deal with this
> issue?

None of the Commercial distributions (AFAIK) have changed the kernel -
RedHat and Slackware certainly come with normal kernels. I don't see
why you'ld want to change the kernel, and keep the changes secret - I
certainly don't see why Caldera, RedHat et al would want to.

Quote:> If Linux's GPL is too restrictive, which other OSes are
> better suited to this purpose? (The FreeBSD web page seems to
> indicate that they try to be less limiting in uses of their code.)

I think the BSD licence is something like 'You can do what you want,
with it unless you are an enemy of the US.'
--
/ In 47 BC Ceasar quelled a threatened mutiny among his troops | MrNice /
/ by addresing them as Quirites (civilians) instead of milites; | That's /
/ the men took this so much to heart they begged to be allowed | my name /
/ to accompany their general to Africa. | /

by **Stephen R Chadfiel** » Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

I'm no expert on this (just killing time while XFree86 3.3 compiles on
my 486 ;-) but you can sell what you like as long as you provide the
source code if the user requests it.

--
Stephen R Chadfield

by **James Youngma** » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:> What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
> Linux?

It's a good idea. There are licensing issues however, and the
situation with that is unrelated to "popular opinion".

Quote:> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

You must also provide source for that kernel. You need not do so for
your application however.

Quote:> How do "commercial" Linux vendors such as Caldera deal with this
> issue?

If you look at the kernel you will see plenty of code whose existence
is owed to Caldera, for example much of the IPX stuff.

Quote:> If Linux's GPL is too restrictive, which other OSes are
> better suited to this purpose? (The FreeBSD web page seems to
> indicate that they try to be less limiting in uses of their code.)

If you provide kernel binaries they will only work on a subset of
possible machines. To make your modified kernel work on all machines
you may need quite a few kernels pre-compiled. Is your product a
turnkey system running on hardware you supply or not? If not, your
users may be ill-served with a precompiled kernel.

by **Cary B. O'Bri** » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

>> What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
>> Linux?

>> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
>> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
>> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
>> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

>If you need to make any changes to the kenrel code, you need to make the
>source code of the modified kernel code available to anyone who wants to
>read it (through an FTP site for example). In addition, you cannot stop
>anyone from redistributing the modified kernel code. You also need to
>have a file where you need to give credits to the linux developers and I
>think that the GPL document has to be included with your software.

>If my understanding is correct, if you write any applications,
>libraries, etc., in addtion to the kernel code, they may not be covered
>by the GPL and you can restrict people from re-distributing the
>application.

>If I am wrong, can anyone correct me ?

Not a correction, but an addition. I am fairly sure that you can
create a non-gpl kernel module and keep it private. I.E. you could
sell hardware x and licence the driver for x as a loadable module
any way you want.

However, as you said, If I am wrong, can anyone correct me ?

Another question: Do you have to tell them whats inside, or can
you just wait 'till they ask?

-- cary

by **Grzegorz Nowakowsk** » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

> >> What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
> >> Linux?

> >> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
> >> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
> >> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
> >> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

[snip]

Quote:> >If my understanding is correct, if you write any applications,
> >libraries, etc., in addtion to the kernel code, they may not be covered
> >by the GPL and you can restrict people from re-distributing the
> >application.

> >If I am wrong, can anyone correct me ?

> Not a correction, but an addition. I am fairly sure that you can
> create a non-gpl kernel module and keep it private. I.E. you could
> sell hardware x and licence the driver for x as a loadable module
> any way you want.

> However, as you said, If I am wrong, can anyone correct me ?

I know very little about kernel but for every extra module I've
installed in kernel I had to recompile that kernel. So probably Ray
would have to release some public-available interface code to patch
kernel so that it 'knows' about extra module.

Quote:> Another question: Do you have to tell them whats inside, or can
> you just wait 'till they ask?

IMO GPL doesn't enforce you to put every detail in README. In fact,
you can even not to release any docs. What GPL says it's that you
have to provide source for your product (1). Then if anyone is
interested, he may at least RTFS (as I did in few cases).

(1) It's not limited to case source-executables. It applies as well
to texinfo-dvi, for example.

Well, to keep tradition: am *I* wrong?
--
Grzegorz "Krecik" Nowakowski

`...this is the rock solid principle on which the whole of the
Corporation's Galaxy-wide success is founded - their fundamental
design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.'
-- So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish -- Douglas Adams.

by **Mikko Rauha** » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:>What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
>Linux?

Just do it ;)

Quote:>Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
>modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
>a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
>of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?

Ah, now in that case your code would fall under "derived work" and you'd
have to supply sources to the whole modified kernel.

Quote:>How do "commercial" Linux vendors such as Caldera deal with this
>issue?

Caldera, for example, has distributed their non-GPL kernel
modifications/additions as loadable kernel modules, which is the way to
go. Of course, you mustn't include any GPL code in your module, or it is
again derived work.

Quote:>If Linux's GPL is too restrictive, which other OSes are
>better suited to this purpose? (The FreeBSD web page seems to
>indicate that they try to be less limiting in uses of their code.)

Now, admittedly the BSD copyright is more liberal, but the GPL isn't too
restrictive either, you just have to understand how it works.

--

by **Mikko Rauha** » Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:>I know very little about kernel but for every extra module I've
>installed in kernel I had to recompile that kernel. So probably Ray

Enable CONFIG_MODVERSIONS in your kernel configuration.

--

by **Christopher B. Brow** » Sat, 14 Jun 1997 04:00:00

On 09 Jun 1997 21:10:11 +0100, Mr V. Nice

>> What is the popular opinion on developing commercial products with
>> Linux?
>> Specifically, if you develop a commercial product that requires
>> modifications to the Linux kernel code, and you end up distributing
>> a compiled, modified Linux kernel with your product, what kind
>> of limitations/obligations are placed on you by the GNU GPL?
>Are that that many times you'ld _need_ to distribute a custom kernel?
>If you did have to, you would have to release the source to you
>changes, but not to whatever program you had written that made use of
>these changes.

It is quite unusual to need a kernel change in order to make an
application work properly; in those cases where something is
positively *missing* it's advantageous to make it part of the "real"
kernel so that you *don't* have to shackle users to some particular
version of the kernel.

For instance, it would not be a good thing if you implemented some
kernel change to (say) implement some new file locking scheme,
requiring a kernel that only you can provide, and then someone wants
to use this with the new Frobozz 922 graphics board for which drivers
are only available in conjunction with the GGI project. (Which
perhaps in '98 may become part of the kernel. Who knows?)

Unfortunately, you don't have a copy of a GGI'able kernel, so that
they can't support the hardware they need to support.

Of course, this is all pretty specious. If someone wants to modify
the kernel to add some functionality, it is entirely appropriate to
create this as a loadable kernel module which, if properly done, can
be integrated into next year's kernel.

Quote:>> How do "commercial" Linux vendors such as Caldera deal with this
>> issue?

They have contributed the GPLed changes to the "official" kernel.

Quote:>None of the Commercial distributions (AFAIK) have changed the kernel -
>RedHat and Slackware certainly come with normal kernels.

Incorrect, arguably.

Quote:>I don't see why you'ld want to change the kernel, and keep the
>changes secret - I certainly don't see why Caldera, RedHat et al
>would want to.

If you examine the messages that come up in the boot process in recent
versions of Linux, you are likely to see mention of some combination
of the following companies who have contributed kernel code:

- Caldera
- Eric Troan (Red Hat)
- Fujitsu Laboratories
- Western Digital Corp
- Data Technology Corp
- Digi
- Stallion Technologies
- D-Link
- Digital Equipment Corporation
- Sangoma Technologies
- Mylex Corporation
- BusLogic

I got this list by doing the following:
# grep copyright /usr/src/linux/*/*.{c,h} | more

In most cases, the code relates to hardware that the vendor sells,
Caldera and Red Hat being the notable exceptions.

In the case of Caldera/Red Hat, in return for some small but useful
bits of source code they get that valuable commodity known as

Good Publicity

If one watches newsgroups and the web carefully, most of the above
mentioned companies do get purchase recommendations.

"You want to get a SCSI controller? Don't buy that Adaptec ****,
BusLogic is really good stuff, and they provide support for Linux to
boot."

Whether Adaptec (punching bag of the hour) sells "bad" product or not
is not too relevant; the point is that people most definitely have had
good results with BusLogic products, and as BusLogic is clearly
Linux-aware (and Adaptec is *not*), they're more likely to get "the
nod" of recommendation.
--

PGP Fingerprint: 10 5A 20 3C 39 5A D3 12 D9 54 26 22 FF 1F E9 16
URL: <http://home.unicomp.net/~cbbrowne/>
Linux: When one country worth of OS developers just isn't enough...

Very Computer

developing commercial products with Linux?