Re: [REQUEST] Clarification from Copyright Holders on FUSE/NDISWRAPPER

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:45:36 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> The position statement on closed-source Linux Kernel Modules was
> deliberately not a "policy statement", nor did it talk about issues
> about what is or isn't legal.  This was deliberate.  Issues over
> whether or not the GPL covers binary modules fundamentally depend on
> individual legal jurisdictions' interpretations of copyright law and
> derivitive works, 

This, of course, means you may want to ask your lawyer to
make sure to which countries binary only kernel modules can
be distributed and in which countries they are definately
illegal.

Then you can put some access control in place on your web
site to make sure people from countries where binary only
kernel modules are illegal cannot download your drivers.

Of course, what to do with the countries where the answer
to the question is not clear cut is up to you...

Investigating a few hundred jurisdictions could be a fair
amount of work, but if you want to be absolutely sure there's
not much else you can do.

-- 
All rights reversed.