Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Alex Bennee]

On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 02:34, gary ng wrote:
> A driver
> writer must be careful in these situations. But the
> burden of proof should still be on the linux
> community, not the other way round.

How is the "community" meant to prove that a binary only driver is an
infringing derivative of GPL'ed code? I suppose you could generate
"signatures" for the inlines to compare against the binary, however it
seems a little inequitable. I would suggest if your working with GPL
code in making a binary-only product you should have done your homework
and be prepared to argue why its not derived when asked.

And I say that having written binary only drivers ;-)

-- 
Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/
What an author likes to write most is his signature on the back of a
cheque.
		-- Brendan Francis

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/