On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 14:08, Kurt Wall wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:33:55AM -0700, grumpy wrote: > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 09:23, Alan wrote: > > > Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. We have "lets ship probably > > > illegal binary modules with the next version of the OS" lecturing people > > > who struck a deal with Microsoft which is borderline on the GPL. > > This kind of geek elitism is holding all of us back > > On my planet, Alan's comment isn't "geek elitism," it's "adhering to the > license terms." And binary modules likely violate the kernel's license > terms. What does 'likely' mean? First you'd have to show that a device driver is a derived work from the kernel in copyright terms, since that is all that the GPL can cover - which is a pretty odd concept to begin with. And if you did that, I think you would also be validating SCO's claims that work that IBM originally did for unix must fall under the unix copyright. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
