The GPL prevents non GPL use, not non commercial use. People sometines seem
to muddle the two concepts up. Basically they have to play by the same rules
you are playing.
> Naturally, if we were to accept patches from third parties, then these could
> only be accepted if all rights to the patches are given to us (through
> disclaimers such as the FSF uses).
In which case keep it out of the kernel tree, or accept the kernel tree parts
will be out of your control like that. "I can't accept a patch for that
bug or to update to this kernel change until you sign a piece of paper doesnt
work for in the mainstream kernel". An explanation and request probably works
for most cases though. ie 'if you change this kernel module please send
a copy of the diff attached to the following email and PGP sign it because..'
Also hopefully the fact your module in the kernel says 'we support it, we
fix it, phone us on blah to discuss support contracts' will get your business
too.
Let me know what you find out about. Ive been approached by a couple of people
about the Z85230 driver and non GPL licensees
> kernel mailing list became embroiled in the flame war about the KDE license,
> and I presume that if it was workable, then TrollTech would have done
> something like this long ago.
The troll tech situation is very different. If the troll tech 'non commercial'
license was GPL the problems resulting from it probably wouldn't have arisen.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/