Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

[David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>   
>> David Newall wrote:
>>     
>>> That being said, a module can be written such that it only dynamically 
>>> links with the kernel.  Ndiswrapper is an example of how this can be 
>>> done: None of the drivers that work under ndiswrapper make any direct 
>>> use of the kernel, not in any way, indeed a wrapper could be written 
>>> for a different operating system.
>>>       
>> The issue is all about "derivative works" in copyright law.
>>
>> Ndiswrapper is in a good position because the closed-source drivers were  
>> originally written for another OS so it's pretty well impossible to  
>> argue that they are derived from linux.
>> ...
>>     
>
> IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same 
> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the 
> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the 
> GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a laptop with a 
> closed-source driver loaded through ndiswrapper.
>   

Don't ignore, "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
scope of this License."  Static linking certainly makes something part
of the whole; dynamic linking doesn't.