| 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: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:22:49 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "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. Make absolutely 100% sure that your driver source code is not a derivative work of any existing kernel code. If it is, you may be violating the copyright of that code just by distributing the source to your driver. If your driver takes sufficient protectable elements both from the kernel and the library, it cannot be distributed in source code form. I would definitely consult a good lawyer to make sure you aren't breaking any of the rules. As for the MODULE_LICENSE tag, if it's supposed to indicate the library the module is under after it's compiled, it's definitely not GPL or GPL with additional rights. Since you can't get the source code to the entire module and can't distribute the binary, it's under a proprietary license. 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