Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:54:46 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux |
| |
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:26:00PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> IANAL, but I have serious doubts whether putting some glue layer >> between the GPL'ed code and the code with a not GPL compatible licence >> is really a legally effictive way of circumventing the GPL. > > It may depend on the details of the "code with a not GPL compatible > licence". > > It's pretty hard to argue that a binary driver written for another OS is > a derivative work of the linux kernel.
Read the paragraph starting with "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole." of the GPLv2.
IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS dynamically linked into the Linux kernel would not be a criminal offense.
> Chris
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |