On Monday 18 December 2006 14:41, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license-
> > compatible, are certainly not derivative works.
>
> Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just like a big chunk
> of other non-GPL drivers for Linux.
>
> But what about the glue code? Can that be defended as not a derived
> work, such that it doesn't have to be GPL?
That has never been an issue, really. Its what 99% of the binary drivers
believe - hence the reason that there is the user-compiled component to all
of them.
> If not, can the whole containing both the non-derivative work and the
> source code providing the glue without which the whole wouldn't
> fulfill its intended purpose be regarded as a mere aggregate, and thus
> not be subject to the requirement that the whole be released under the
> GPL?
The view that binary vendors take is "Linking does not create a derived
work" - regardless of the fact that you cannot have a complete compiled
program or module *WITHOUT* that linking. However I have a feeling that the
lawyers in the employ of the companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all
they need to do to comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source
form.
And I have to admit that this does seem to comply with the GPL - to the
letter, if not the spirit.
DRH
-
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]
