Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:21:31 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: MODULE_LICENSE usage |
| |
On Aug 6 2007 17:53, Nathan Williams wrote: >Hi, > >I'm working on a driver for an ADSL modem which requires the use of a >binary library from the chipset manufacturer. All my source code is >GPL, [...] >I've given permission for the binary library file to be used with the GPL >source code and be re-distributed with it. > >Is it correct to say that my driver is licensed under GPL with >additional rights to use the binary library file?
[ Obligatory IANAL sticker. ]
Clear case for me IMHO. If your code is GPL (and which you emphasize with MODULE_LICENSE(GPL)) and then link in a binary blob, then the combined work becomes GPL, and you are required to hand out sources for it, including for the blob.
I won't mention the gray possibilities because it is just evil in the first place to begin with.
>Additionally, I'm unsure of what is the meaning of > >"GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
I think (but I may be wrong) that e.g. "GPL+BSD" fall into this. (Which not change the fact that you are still obliged to comply with the GPL.)
> >Thank you, >Nathan >- >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/ >
Jan -- - 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/
| |