Thanks for the prompt respons.
I do agree that it would be better for everyone to release it under
GPL and I have already expressed that to our customer.
At this point I feel that we have two possibilities, help our customer
violate GPL or say no to the project. I'd prefer a third option where
I could tell the customer that we can setup the project in a certain
way (some "cleanroom" setup ?) to ensure that the results can not be
considered derived work.
Is your short answer also the definite answer considering this ?
--
/Fredrik
2008/11/18 Robert Hancock <hancockr@xxxxxxx>:Fredrik Markström wrote:Linus, others...In a word, I would say: no.
I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting
Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much
up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to
protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC.
My question is: Is there a fair way to do this and still comply to
the intent and spirit of the Linux licensing ?
If yes, how ?
When developing a non-GPL kernel driver, one finds themselves on very shaky
legal ground. Unless one is 100% sure their code is not legally considered a
derived work from the kernel, it's likely a GPL violation.
One could point out the pile of other Ethernet drivers in the kernel from
the likes of Intel, Broadcom, etc. and ask why those companies did not feel
the need to "protect their IP" in this manner.. as well as the significant
advantages of having their driver in the mainline kernel, and the horrible
disadvantages of trying to manage closed-source drivers..