Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

[David Lang]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote:

> But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed
> my POP server too!  That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL.
> And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to
> need to understand how a lawsuit for copyright infringement works.
> The very, very, very concise version is:

<argument snipped for brevity>

I understand why you say that the Evil Linker's program isn't covered by the 
GPL, but your argument makes it sound like the modified POP server doesn't need 
to have it's source released. This I don't understand, it contains the origional 
source code, so what right does Evil Linker have to distribute it (or a modified 
version).

you are comeing dangerously close to saying that the GPL is meaningless and 
putting something under it is the same as putting it under public domain. There 
is case law now that says that this isn't the case (although I agree that it's 
not nearly as broad as it's proponents would like it to be)

David Lang
-
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/