Re: GPL Violation?

[Patrick McFarland <diablod3@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 17 August 2006 05:30, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Mer, 2006-08-16 am 22:48 -0700, ysgrifennodd Anonymous User:
> > I suspect the company will try to get away with releasing as little as
> > possible.  I don't know much about the GPL or Linux kernel internals,
> > but I want to encourage the company I work for to give back to the
> > community.
>
> You should read the GPL license (its fairly plain English). Any matters
> of doubt should be discussed with someone qualified to discuss then
> (such as a lawyer).

(Yes, which I've basically said that about five times now)

> Basically if it is a derivative work (see your lawyer). This is a
> non-trivial area of law so really you should ask your lawyer not a bunch
> of programmers.

It's still important for programmers to understand licenses well. Maybe Linus 
needs to put up a page somewhere detailing, in plain, yet non-legally 
binding, English, what you can and cannot do.

Of course, this wouldn't be even an issue if companies understood how Linux, 
operating system drivers, and computers historically work instead of having 
to screw everything up with all these new ways new ways of screwing people 
with IP rights and unwarrented paranoia.

Side question, would it ever be possible, with GPL code, to make modules and 
plugins of non-GPL compatible origin a license violation? Would this be a 
good idea for the kernel?

> Alan

-- 
Patrick McFarland || www.AdTerrasPerAspera.com
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids,
we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and
listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo,
Inc, 1989