On Friday 28 September 2001 07:42 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That I would call an obvious GPL violation... no discussion
> > about vague "interfaces", if you directly link serial.c
> > (even modified) into a non-GPL .o file that's obvious....
> I raised this one with Ted T'so (who wrote the serial.c they use) a
> long time ago. Ted seemed happy for this to occur - and its kind of
> his code, his business.
Prehaps it'd be a good idea to (unofficialy) ask authors of drivers in
the kernel that are thought to be GPL'd and not known to be under other
licenses (BSD etc.), to (when possible) let the public know that
they've granted some sort of license to a company/person to use that
code in a binary-only module, so that people don't start accusing
people of blatant GPL violations if they happen to notice. serial.c
would be a perfect example of something that could be construed as a
blatant violation and people might start yelling at the company and
others about it, and it might make the company less willing to support
Linux *at all*.
I'd prefer that there was no such thing as a binary-only module, but
IMO binary-only is better than no support whatsoever. And if people
start yelling at companies for using something they may have a
legitimate license for, those companies may wonder what the point is in
supporting Linux at all.
(This isn't directed at Arjan van de Ven, he just stated obvious facts,
he didn't go off half-cocked at anybody :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:01:02 EST