[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080207141557.5fcf3b2d@core>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:15:57 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
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
> > IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
> > sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
> > GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a laptop with a
> > closed-source driver loaded through ndiswrapper.
>
> Don't ignore, "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
> scope of this License." Static linking certainly makes something part
> of the whole; dynamic linking doesn't.
Wrong again. You really are quite amusing. The test is "derivative works"
not linking. Linking is a meaningless (in law) computing term with no
place. Legal precedent for combining of works is drawn from things like
shipping a book and a commentary on the book together, putting music to
films, putting photos in a book. These are not "linking"
And I know what the lawyers I've talked to have said about the case of
shipping proprietary modules with the OS. Its a pretty definite "bad idea"
Alan
--
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