| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEGLFPAC.davids@webmaster.com> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:22:50 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: MODULE_LICENSE usage > > My company has been given documentation and the library source under > > the terms of an NDA with the chipset manufacturer. We are permitted > > to compile the library and distribute the resultant binary blob, but > > not release the source to the library. > > > > The binary blob is linked into the driver we have written. We don't > > distribute this compiled module, customers are given the driver source > > and the library blob, which they compile themselves. > So you distribute a kernel derived work without following the GPL. I hope > you've discussed that with your legal team in depth. What "kernel derived work" would that be? All he distributes is the binary blob and the source code to his driver. He hasn't given sufficient information to establish that either of those is a "kernel derived work". It's certainly possibly that they might be and sensible to caution him that he's breaking the rules if they are, but you can't establish that he's not following the GPL. Of course, he would have a definitely problem if he, or anyone else, distributed the resulting binary. DS - 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