Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:02:47 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I see. And your argument, had it prevailed 5 years ago, would have > invalidated the following, would it not? The following from one of the > Microsoft lawsuits.
No it wouldn't.
Microsoft very much _has_ a binary API to their drivers, in a way that Linux doesn't.
MS has to have that binary API exactly because they live in a binary-only world. They've basically put that requirement on themselves by having binary-only distributions.
So your argument doesn't fly. To Microsoft, a "driver" is just another external entity, with documented API's, and they indeed ship their _own_ drivers that way too. And all third-party drivers do the same thing.
So there is no analogy to the Linux case. In Linux, no fixed binary API exists, and the way normal drivers are distributed are as GPL'd source code.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |