On Aug 6 2007 17:53, Nathan Williams wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm working on a driver for an ADSL modem which requires the use of a
>binary library from the chipset manufacturer. All my source code is
>GPL, [...]
>I've given permission for the binary library file to be used with the GPL
>source code and be re-distributed with it.
>
>Is it correct to say that my driver is licensed under GPL with
>additional rights to use the binary library file?
[ Obligatory IANAL sticker. ]
Clear case for me IMHO. If your code is GPL (and which you emphasize
with MODULE_LICENSE(GPL)) and then link in a binary blob, then the
combined work becomes GPL, and you are required to hand out sources for
it, including for the blob.
I won't mention the gray possibilities because it is just evil in the
first place to begin with.
>Additionally, I'm unsure of what is the meaning of
>
>"GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
I think (but I may be wrong) that e.g. "GPL+BSD" fall into this. (Which
not change the fact that you are still obliged to comply with the GPL.)
>
>Thank you,
>Nathan
>-
>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/
>
Jan
--
-
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]
