lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: pwc+pwcx is not illegal
From
Date
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
>
> We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.

Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
using hooks are illegal.

They're not nice at all, but that's a different matter.

> It's a gray area
> legally (and whatever you say won't change that),

Well, yes, but not very. If this ever goes before
a judge, betting that pwcx is ruled to be a derived
work would be a foolish way to bet.

> but it's absolutely not
> gray from a distribution standpoint.
>
> AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
>
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked
> for it.

Sure. No problem, but let's not be suggesting that
this has anything to do with the law.


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans