linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:02:10 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	davids@...master.com, David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:50:17 +0100, Marcel Holtmann said:

> go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then
> ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only
> form without making the source code available (according to the GPL).
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

What happens if I ship a binary-only program that uses *either* a GPL library
or a custom library with the same API?  "If you don't have the Frobozz-Foo
library, you'll have to supply your own work-alike"....

(Note that this is in fact the *usual* case - very few programs actually
check that they are linking against a Genuine GPL(tm) library, they just want
the *API*, so providing a work-alike is sufficient....)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped