From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264120AbTLEOwN (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:52:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264142AbTLEOwN (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:52:13 -0500 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]:4819 "EHLO natsmtp00.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264120AbTLEOwL (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:52:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD09B8E.7020701@softhome.net> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:51:58 +0100 From: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Organization: Home Sweet Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030927 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Smietanowski CC: Helge Hafting , Jason Kingsland , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <3FCF696F.4000605@softhome.net> <3FD067CF.4010207@aitel.hist.no> <3FD07611.4050709@stesmi.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD07611.4050709@stesmi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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