From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267746AbUH0VCv (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:02:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267633AbUH0U7e (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:59:34 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:7811 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267648AbUH0U6y (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:58:54 -0400 Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal From: Albert Cahalan To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list , pmarques@grupopie.com, greg@kroah.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: References: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 27 Aug 2004 16:57:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can we drop this straw-man discussion now? > > We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH) that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers using hooks are illegal. They're not nice at all, but that's a different matter. > It's a gray area > legally (and whatever you say won't change that), Well, yes, but not very. If this ever goes before a judge, betting that pwcx is ruled to be a derived work would be a foolish way to bet. > but it's absolutely not > gray from a distribution standpoint. > > AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE! > > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked > for it. Sure. No problem, but let's not be suggesting that this has anything to do with the law.