A new patch series posted today to the Linux kernel mailing list would block kernel modules/drivers from TUXEDO Computers from accessing GPL-only symbols in the kernel.

TUXEDO Computers maintains a set of kernel drivers currently out-of-tree for their various laptops for additional functionality around power profiles, keyboard backlight controls, WMI, sensor monitoring, the embedded controller, and other functionality. They have said they want to eventually mainline these drivers but in the name of allowing for rapid hardware support they maintain them out-of-tree and ship them with their Ubuntu-based TUXEDO OS and also have the driver sources available via GitLab.

The issue at hand though is that these kernel drivers marked as GPLv3+ and that conflicts with the upstream Linux kernel code licensed as GPLv2. There was a commit to change the driver license from GPLv3 to GPL(v2) but was reverted by TUXEDO Computers on the basis of “until the legal stuff is sorted out.”

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
    7·
    24 hours ago

    proprietary

    Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

    So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

    EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

    Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

    So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

    As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

    The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.