> No, quite the opposite. The Linux kernel project has claimed that kernel-mode symbols equivalent to the userspace ABI do not trip the GPL copyleft. That's why they have the GPL_ONLY DRM[2]; it's to distinguish between "running two programs in the same address space" and "merging a module into the same GPL program".
> Compaq didn't need to ship code that links with the IBM PC BIOS. They needed to ship code that replaced it entirely. There is a difference between replacing a program and linking with it.
Does the Linux license (with the GPL_only thing) allows you to replace open source modules with self-contained proprietary ones? For this I mean, let's say I want to build a proprietary network stack tailored for a given hardware I'm building. In such case, may I do it as long as I write it from scratch and run it in kernelspace as a module? If that's the case, why do kernel infringements occur? Why wouldn't everybody just reimplement in their own proprietary way whatever they have to? Why is closed source DRM/anticheat non-existent on Linux?