[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47A8F27F.3060504@nortel.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:34:23 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
David Newall wrote:
> That being said, a module can be written such
> that it only dynamically links with the kernel. Ndiswrapper is an
> example of how this can be done: None of the drivers that work under
> ndiswrapper make any direct use of the kernel, not in any way, indeed a
> wrapper could be written for a different operating system.
The issue is all about "derivative works" in copyright law.
Ndiswrapper is in a good position because the closed-source drivers were
originally written for another OS so it's pretty well impossible to
argue that they are derived from linux.
However, if I were to write a new GPL shim and then a new closed-source
module that uses the shim to access kernel symbols, it is entirely
possible that a court could rule that my closed-source module is a
derivative work of the linux kernel because it was written specifically
to run on linux.
On the other hand if I were to sit down and write an OS-agnostic
proprietary chunk of code, and then write a new GPL shim to use it under
linux (and maybe other shim layers for other OS's as well), I _might_ be
okay. But I would have to be prepared to prove that the proprietary
code was not derived from the Linux kernel.
Chris
--
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