[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702160952.l1G9qMsY025262@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:52:22 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: v j <vj.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Trent Waddington <trent.waddington@...il.com>,
David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>,
Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <maxextreme@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:25:12 PST, v j said:
> > It's written in black and white, in the license.
>
> Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
> the Kernel.
Nobody can point you there, because it doesn't say that anywhere.
What you do to *your* kernel is *your* business.
The question is what the code you *distribute* to *other* people does. It's
perfectly legal to load proprietary modules into the kernel. The open question
is whether you're allowed to ship a proprietary module to somebody else.
And that will depend in *great* detail on *exactly* what your module does,
what code it uses, and how it does it. As others have pointed out, NVidia
and ATI think they're in an OK spot with the way *they* do *their* module,
while many embedded companies, shipping a much different product, have almost
unanimously given in rather than risk a court fight about the GPL.
Of course, most companies will cave in and license rather than fight a
patent troll as well - so you *really* need to discuss *your* case with
a clueful lawyer.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists