Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[gary ng]

How ? That beats me. But I believe it is no different
from any other vendor trying to prove others infringe
their copyright(insider tips etc.). BTW, the court
rule in the SCO case that they have the burden to
prove their accuse of IBM, in the discovery phase and
not the other way round.

No I don't have the talent to write driver, I am
simply a linux user :-)

--- Alex Bennee <kernel-hacker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
-
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/