[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: MODULE_LICENSE usage

On Aug 6 2007 17:53, Nathan Williams wrote:
>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,
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to
>More majordomo info at
>Please read the FAQ at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-06 10:25    [W:0.074 / U:2.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site