Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> As long as you don't distribute /proc/kcore, I can't see how the GPL
> >> would have any say in the matter.  The Windows drivers are (unrelated
> >> violations aside) clearly not derived from GPL code.
> >
> > Someone might sell a laptop with Linux installed?
> 
> Not a problem, unless it is booted when sold.  Even that might not be
> a problem, since it would be a matter of transferring ownership of a
> single copy, not creating and distributing new copies, and the GPL
> does is only concerned with the latter.

Interesting... I never heard about this `transferring ownership of a
single copy not involving GPL'.

Note that some lawyers claim that at trade shows, you should not hand over
a demo device running GPLed code to any interested party, as it would be
distribution...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds