On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:14, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> >
> > Isn't that the same claim that SCO has tried to make - that
> > anything developed for and compiled with the Unix kernel
> > is covered by their copyright and controlled by their
> > terms regardless of who wrote it?
>
> No - not at all.
> Different scenario all together.
The laws don't change from one product to another.
> Ship a binary driver by itself - you aren't shipping any GPL code.
> nvidia could ship their driver with their video cards, for example - and
> be fine.
That seems to be a fuzzy area.
> But once you are shipping the kernel, you have to abide by the GPL or
> else you have no right to distribute the kernel at all. Since the binary
> module adds functionality to the kernel, it is a modification to the GPL
> product (kernel) you are shipping - and therefore has to be released
> with a GPL compatible license.
If the module is a separate file and doesn't infringe separately
then you'd be able to ship them together under the
'mere aggregration' clause.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
