[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <courier.47A84ADB.000047C1@hawking.rebel.net.au>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:09:07 +1030
From: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
Marcel Holtmann writes:
> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
> the GPL.
Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it
would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be
written and distributed as a module under any licence, proprietary or
otherwise, presumably with the restriction that it may NOT be built-in.
> You driver was meant to be
> running as Linux kernel module and thus it is derivative work.
It is precisely the fact that it is a loadable module, and does not form
part of the kernel, that removes the requirement to distribute it under GPL.
> What are you arguing here. It makes no difference if it is technical or
> not. The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL gives you a clear hint that when using this
> symbol, you have to obey to the GPL.
And that "hint" is a lie.
--
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