Messages in this thread | | | From | "David Schwartz" <> | Subject | RE: Driver Model | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:41:02 -0700 |
| |
> On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 15:36, Stuart MacDonald wrote: > > If the MODULE_LICENSE() macro is what determines taint, what's to > > prevent a company from compiling their driver in their own kernel tree > > with that macro and releasing it binary-only? Wouldn't that module > > then be taint-free?
> They would be representing their module is GPL when its not, obtaining > services by deceving people (3rd party support) and if they used _GPL > symbols probably violating the DMCA by bypassing a digital rights > system.
Holy crap! You've totally pegged my hypocrisy meter.
It is an outright blatant violation of the GPL to build use limitations into GPL'd works and then use the DMCA to prevent people from removing or bypassing those limitations.
Next I'm going to add some new features to Linux and my code will check for a license certificate before it runs. I'll use the DMCA to protect the license check but I'll distribute the source code just like the GPL requires me to.
No, the GPL does not require derived works to be GPL'd. No, the GPL does not allow you to impose additional usage restrictions and use the DMCA to prohibit people from modifying the code to use it the way they want.
DS
- 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/
| |