Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:51:58 +0100 | From | "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
Stefan Smietanowski wrote: > Helge Hafting wrote: > >> Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: >> >>> GPL is about distribution. >>> >>> e.g. NVidia can distribute .o file (with whatever license they have >>> to) and nvidia.{c,h} files (even under GPL license). >>> Then install.sh may do on behalf of user "gcc nvidia.c blob.o -o >>> nvidia.ko". Resulting module are not going to be distributed - it is >>> already at hand of end-user. So no violation of GPL whatsoever. >> >> >> >> Open source still win if they do this. Anybody interested >> may then read the restricted source and find out how >> the chip works. They may then write an open driver >> from scratch, using the knowledge. > > > What I think he means is that nvidia.c only contains glue code and > blob.o contains the secret parts just like the current driver from > nvidia. >
Exactly. Source code licensing from second parties is really pain in the ass.
At my previous job I had situation that piece of code was several times. I beleive we were fourth company who bought it and incorporated into applience. But ask anyone "what kind of rights do we have for this stuff?" - no-one really can answer, since we-are-not-lawyers so better to tell no-one how we use it. Probably we even had no rights to fix bugs... who knows?..
-- Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken. -- _ _ _ Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init" |_|*|_| literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint, |_|_|*| because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add, |*|*|*| that would be a great name for a rock band). -- Linus Torvalds
- 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/
| |