> But I stand by my assertion: many kernel developers on record stating
> that they don't want their work used in binary-only modules, and the
> reason that this hasn't been decided by a court yet is no sufficiently
> deep-pocketed plaintiff (independantly wealthy kernel hackers or a big
> corporation with copyright interest in the kernel) has decided to sue,
> yet.
>
> See Linus' statements here:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html
> and here: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.1/0708.html
> if you think I'm just pulling this stuff out of my butt.
>
Looking at Linus' arguments, how would you say those kernel developers
feel about the following scenario:
I have access to a 3rd party file system, written not for Linux but
for some completely different OS. But my license with that vendor does
not allow me to distribute the file system. I write the translation
layer that they describe in their documentation that allows me to drop
their file system, unchanged, into Linux. I GPL the translation layer
and make the source available appropriately. (This is similar to the
AFS point in Linus' email, but not exactly the same.) I do not, since
I don't permission to, distribute the source for the third party OS.
1) Have I met my legal obligation under the GPL? (Seems to me Linus
would say yes, but I want to understand other people's view on this.)
2) Will the developers you mention above be unhappy anyway, even if I have?
-
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]
