Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux | From | Måns Rullgård <> | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:45:03 +0000 |
| |
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes: >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> >> As long as you don't distribute /proc/kcore, I can't see how the GPL >> >> would have any say in the matter. The Windows drivers are (unrelated >> >> violations aside) clearly not derived from GPL code. >> > >> > Someone might sell a laptop with Linux installed? >> >> Not a problem, unless it is booted when sold. Even that might not be >> a problem, since it would be a matter of transferring ownership of a >> single copy, not creating and distributing new copies, and the GPL >> is only concerned with the latter. > > Interesting... I never heard about this `transferring ownership of a > single copy not involving GPL'.
In the US, the first sale doctrine allows one to do pretty much anything with a given copy of a work, so long as no duplication is taking place. This includes modifying the work and selling it.
> Note that some lawyers claim that at trade shows, you should not hand over > a demo device running GPLed code to any interested party, as it would be > distribution...
Lawyers tend to be overly cautious at times. That said, I am not a lawyer, and may have misunderstood something. If that is the case, I apologise for any confusion I may have caused.
-- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com -- 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/
| |