| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:35:17 +1000 From: "Trent Waddington" <trent.waddington@...il.com> To: "Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>, "Xavier Bestel" <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>, "Mohammed Gamal" <m.gamal005@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers On 2/15/07, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote: > I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and > a half since I first brought this questionable act to their > attention. Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think. If ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at all, and ATI has taken their lawyers' advice, then the advice would have been: we believe the risk of liability is acceptable. The only reason I can imagine why a lawyer would advise a client that it is an acceptable risk to do something legally questionable with the linux kernel is that so few kernel people have been sued for, or given notice of, an infringement. If any of the kernel developers, other than Harald Welte, are enforcing their copyright, they don't tend to publicize it. I, personally, don't know why anyone who owned copyright on any GPL software and had no desire to enforce that copyright, would not offer to assign their copyright to the FSF so they can defend it.. but I imagine people have their reasons. Trent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists