Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:32:12 -0800 | From | "marty fouts" <> | Subject | Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers. |
| |
> But I stand by my assertion: many kernel developers on record stating > that they don't want their work used in binary-only modules, and the > reason that this hasn't been decided by a court yet is no sufficiently > deep-pocketed plaintiff (independantly wealthy kernel hackers or a big > corporation with copyright interest in the kernel) has decided to sue, > yet. > > See Linus' statements here: > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html > and here: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.1/0708.html > if you think I'm just pulling this stuff out of my butt. >
Looking at Linus' arguments, how would you say those kernel developers feel about the following scenario:
I have access to a 3rd party file system, written not for Linux but for some completely different OS. But my license with that vendor does not allow me to distribute the file system. I write the translation layer that they describe in their documentation that allows me to drop their file system, unchanged, into Linux. I GPL the translation layer and make the source available appropriately. (This is similar to the AFS point in Linus' email, but not exactly the same.) I do not, since I don't permission to, distribute the source for the third party OS.
1) Have I met my legal obligation under the GPL? (Seems to me Linus would say yes, but I want to understand other people's view on this.)
2) Will the developers you mention above be unhappy anyway, even if I have? - 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/
| |