Dave Allen <email@example.com> said:
> The source code for the driver _is_ going to be available, but it will
> not be GPL'd. There are no patches to the kernel involved. I
> understand that there should be no problems, but the use of inline
> functions in the kernel header files makes the situation a bit more
> complicated. The compiled binary code then does contain GPL'd code,
> so would it not then be considered a "derivative work"?
AFAIU, .h files are meant to be #included without strings attached, so you
should be safe here. It might be a good idea to clarify points like this
one (it comes up now and then) and add some .../Documentation/legalese/
into the kernel... BTW, GPL covers distributing stuff only, so just whoever
distributes the result could be in trouble. IANAL, and I'm not the
copyright holder (who would have to decide if/when/who to sue for
infringement in any case ;-)
Experts on legal stuff and copyright you won't find here, I'm afraid.
May I ask why not GPLing the driver? You could for example state that the
code is under GPL for use in the Linux kernel only, even distribute under
the GPL and some other license at the same time. By giving the Linux
community the right to modify and redistribute the result it will benefit
from the general work on drivers to port them forward and fix bugs.
-- Horst von Brand firstname.lastname@example.org Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST