Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > > So, as dynamic loading is ok between parts of Linux and binary-only
> > > code, that seems to imply we could build a totally different kind of
> > > binary-only kernel which was able to make use of all the Linux kernel
> > > modules.  We could even modularise parts of the kernel which aren't
> > > modular now, so that we could take advantage of even more parts of Linux.
> > 
> > You want a legal list - you really do. Its all about derived works and
> > thats an area where even some lawyers will only hunt in packs 8)
> 
> Alan, you're right of course - from a legal standpoint.  But I'm not
> interested in how it pans out in a strict legal interpretation.
> 
> What I'm interested in is how the kernel developers and driver authors
> would treat something like that.  Binary modules haven't had the full
> lawyer treatment AFAIK, but a sort of community viewpoint regarding
> what is and is not acceptable, to the community, is fairly clear on
> this list.
> 
> So I was wondering what is the community viewpoint when it's the
> core kernel that is a non-GPL binary, rather than the modules.
> 
> What if this new-fangled other kernel is open source, but BSD
> license

If you took vicam driver and made it ran under Windows XP, it would be
okay. (It uses defined interface after all). I do not see why vicam
driver under "your own os" would be different.

								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]