Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:49:49 +0200 | Subject | Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible | From | Helge Hafting <> |
| |
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:34:25PM -0400, Erik Harrison wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:11:00 -0700, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware > > > > image as part of a Linux or other Open Source operating > > > > system kernel > > > > in text or binary form as required. > > > > They can't grant that permission. Every single person who had contributed > > to the Linux kernel would have to agree. The GPL prohibits including > > software that isn't itself GPL'd from being combined with GPL'd software. > > The issue is not permission to distribute this driver, the issue is > > permission to distribute the *kernel*. The kernel's license prohibits > > distrubiting it in combination with works that have licenses more > > restrictive than the GPL. > > That better be bogus, or else vendors are going to be very upset that > they can't ship the kernel with, say, trademarked images. For example, > Mozilla's trademark on their artwork is fairly restrictive, or the > Mandrake Firewall product (if that's even still around - I don't keep > up).
Not bogus, but the solutions are simple:
1. don't _link_ the proprietary file into the kernel, ship firmware & logo as separate files along with the distro. No problem.
2. Release drivers under the GPL instead of restrictive licence, provide GPL'ed logos instead of the trademarked ones.
Helge Hafting - 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/
| |