Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.

Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:03:51 +0200


On Fri, Sep 25, 1998 at 02:58:14PM +0100, Tethys wrote:
>
> >There is a solution: The authors of a GPL driver could
> >agree to rerelease it under different license, for example
> >the X11R3 license. But all authors must agree, and many
> >Linux drivers have several authors. I can't see this
> >happening on a large scale unless someone is actually
> >paying the driver writers.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >Perhaps you should be talking more with the Free/Open/NetBSD
> >people. Their license is much more flexible in this regard.
>
> Not to throw more fuel on the fire, but LGPL would be much
> better in this case, ensuring that if commercial OS vendors

It depends entirely on the wishes of the driver writer.

If you want to make driver writing easier by modifying
an already existing Linux driver, then you are forced
to use the GPL (unless you can get the agreement of the
original driver writer for a change).

If you want your driver adopted as an official part
of an OS, that may impose restrictions. These may
be political/practical restrictions rather than
legal-technical ones, but that doesn't make them less real.
I don't think LGPL is allowed by XFree or the BSD kernels,
for example. The NCR SCSI driver has shown that a dual
license can work here.

But yes, the LGPL is often an alternative.

-- 
Erik Corry erik@arbat.com           Ceterum censeo, Microsoftem esse delendam!

- 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/