My assumption is that it's not a violation because the module's code doesn't contain GPL code but interfaces with the kernel (another program) that is GPL. As long as the sources don't mix it shouldn't be an issue, but then I'm not sure about the full technical details.
Linux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
[..] legal ground to force proprietary module vendors to release their source code?
What would make anyone think that? No one has to publish their code. If you really want a FLOSS kernel you'll have to find open replacements for those modules or make them yourself.
Actually, if you distribute a derivative work of a GPL licensed project, you have to release the source code.
I have to admit that I'm not all that knowledgeable about licensing, so I did a little research and you are totally right. My bad! Legal means would totally be possible then, but that'd require someone actually pressing charges. Since that hasn't happened yet, I fear it's pretty unlikely at least in the foreseeable future..
If you really want a FLOSS kernel you’ll have to find open replacements for those modules or make them yourself.
basically openbsd?