> After asking the FSF for advice and working through their FAQ, I've
> given permission for the binary library file to be used with the GPL
> source code and be re-distributed with it.
Only the copyright holder can give additional permissions for a piece of
code so for such a change you must have the permission of each copyright
holder of the code.
If you write all the GPL code you can give permission for it to be mixed
with a non-free library (creating a less free than GPL result) but you
didn't write all of the kernel.
You also dont make it clear if the library is code running on the PC or
is firmware. That may make quite a difference.
> I would like to know if I'm permitted to use MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in my module.
Almost certainly not. If your module was GPL licensed there would be no
binary library file.
> Additionally, I'm unsure of what is the meaning of
>
> "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
It indicates code where the recipient and end user has additional
rights beyond the GPL. Your proposal is additional restrictions which is
different and not GPL compatible.
> Is it correct to say that my driver is licensed under GPL with
> additional rights to use the binary library file?
The kernel developers have not given you permission to link their code
with binary only codes so the answer is that if your code is any way a
derivative work of the kernel you have no ability to distribute the
work resulting from putting together kernel GPL code and the binary stuff
at all.
-
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]
