Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 2003 23:36:02 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel |
| |
Hi!
> > > So, as dynamic loading is ok between parts of Linux and binary-only > > > code, that seems to imply we could build a totally different kind of > > > binary-only kernel which was able to make use of all the Linux kernel > > > modules. We could even modularise parts of the kernel which aren't > > > modular now, so that we could take advantage of even more parts of Linux. > > > > You want a legal list - you really do. Its all about derived works and > > thats an area where even some lawyers will only hunt in packs 8) > > Alan, you're right of course - from a legal standpoint. But I'm not > interested in how it pans out in a strict legal interpretation. > > What I'm interested in is how the kernel developers and driver authors > would treat something like that. Binary modules haven't had the full > lawyer treatment AFAIK, but a sort of community viewpoint regarding > what is and is not acceptable, to the community, is fairly clear on > this list. > > So I was wondering what is the community viewpoint when it's the > core kernel that is a non-GPL binary, rather than the modules. > > What if this new-fangled other kernel is open source, but BSD > license
If you took vicam driver and made it ran under Windows XP, it would be okay. (It uses defined interface after all). I do not see why vicam driver under "your own os" would be different.
Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| |