Jeff Michael Buesch wrote:
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:49, Alexander Fisher wrote:Hello. A supplier of a PCI mezzanine digital IO card has provided a linux 2.4 driver as source code. They have provided this code source with a license stating I won't redistribute it in anyway. My concern is that if I build this code into a module, I won't be able to distribute it to customers without violating either the GPL (by not distributing the source code), or the proprietary source code license as currently imposed by the supplier. From what I have read, this concern is only valid if the binary module is considered to be a 'derived work' of the kernel. The module source directly includes the following kernel headers :Take the code and write a specification for the device. Should be fairly easy. Someone else will pick up the spec and write a clean GPLed driver. Like these, without the reverse engineering part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Computer_science
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
- Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- From: Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>
- Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- References:
- Would I be violating the GPL?
- From: Alexander Fisher <alexjfisher@gmail.com>
- Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- From: Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>
- Would I be violating the GPL?
- Prev by Date: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.14-git3: scheduling while atomic from cpufreq on Athlon64
- Previous by thread: Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- Next by thread: Re: Would I be violating the GPL?
- Index(es):
![]() |