On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing
> > the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code.
> > As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need
> > for it. And as such, the new code contains the _GPL markings, as I do
> > not think that _anyone_ can try to claim that their code would not be a
> > derived work of Linux who wants to use it (as no other OS has such a
> > driver model interface.)
>
> That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used
> for ndiswrapper, for example. That would not make the Windows net
> drivers derived code of the Linux kernel. ndiswrapper, yes it would be.
> Binary driver blobs, no.
>
> ndiswrapper is a perfect example, in fact. It is GPL, and implements an
> _interface_ to binary code that is not GPL.
And do your lawyers deem ndiswrapper as something that is legal under
the GPL? The ones I have talked to definitely do not feel that way.
Again, why are we, non-lawyers arguing about this. If you work for a
company that deals with Linux kernel issues, and you have any questions
about the legality of _anything_, get a legal opinion. Don't rely on
lkml for this.
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
