Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing
> > the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code.
> > As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need
> > for it.  And as such, the new code contains the _GPL markings, as I do
> > not think that _anyone_ can try to claim that their code would not be a
> > derived work of Linux who wants to use it (as no other OS has such a
> > driver model interface.)
> 
> That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used
> for ndiswrapper, for example.  That would not make the Windows net
> drivers derived code of the Linux kernel.  ndiswrapper, yes it would be.
> Binary driver blobs, no.
> 
> ndiswrapper is a perfect example, in fact.  It is GPL, and implements an
> _interface_ to binary code that is not GPL.  

And do your lawyers deem ndiswrapper as something that is legal under
the GPL?  The ones I have talked to definitely do not feel that way.

Again, why are we, non-lawyers arguing about this.  If you work for a
company that deals with Linux kernel issues, and you have any questions
about the legality of _anything_, get a legal opinion.  Don't rely on
lkml for this.

greg k-h