Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
2003-12-05T14:52:13Z

Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>> Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
>>
>>> GPL is about distribution.
>>>
>>> e.g. NVidia can distribute .o file (with whatever license they have
>>> to) and nvidia.{c,h} files (even under GPL license).
>>> Then install.sh may do on behalf of user "gcc nvidia.c blob.o -o
>>> nvidia.ko". Resulting module are not going to be distributed - it is
>>> already at hand of end-user. So no violation of GPL whatsoever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Open source still win if they do this. Anybody interested
>> may then read the restricted source and find out how
>> the chip works. They may then write an open driver
>> from scratch, using the knowledge.
>
>
> What I think he means is that nvidia.c only contains glue code and
> blob.o contains the secret parts just like the current driver from
> nvidia.
>

Exactly.
Source code licensing from second parties is really pain in the ass.

At my previous job I had situation that piece of code was several
times. I beleive we were fourth company who bought it and incorporated
into applience. But ask anyone "what kind of rights do we have for this
stuff?" - no-one really can answer, since we-are-not-lawyers so better
to tell no-one how we use it. Probably we even had no rights to fix
bugs... who knows?..

--
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
-- _ _ _
Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init" |_|*|_|
literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint, |_|_|*|
because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add, |*|*|*|
that would be a great name for a rock band).
-- Linus Torvalds