From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422652AbXCBAbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:31:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422653AbXCBAbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:31:49 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:34329 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422652AbXCBAbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:31:49 -0500 Message-ID: <45E77073.1000208@goop.org> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:31:47 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jiri Slaby CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: License violation? References: <45E76C16.1030706@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45E76C16.1030706@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jiri Slaby wrote: > Hi. > > I have a GPL driver (written by me) with workarounds, since I hadn't > know-how, when I wrote it. Now I've got 2.4 proprietary driver from > the vendor. Is use of the 2.4 driver know-how OK? (And could be such > driver merged?) > > These are lines from the proprietary driver: > IMPORTANT SAFETY & LEGAL INFORMATION: > > This source file is provided as part of the SensAble > Technologies PDD/GHOST Software Development Toolkit in > order to facilitate the use of PCI-based PHANToM haptic > interface devices across various Linux kernel revisions. > It is meant to be recompiled without modification. It > should NOT be modified in any way. Any modification of > this source code will void any and all software and/or > hardware warranties and maintenance agreements with > SensAble Technologies or its assignees. Furthermore, > modification of this source file may result in the damage > or failure of the user's hardware. SensAble Technologies > and its assignees assume no responsibility for any damage > or injury resulting from the modification of this file. > > It's obvious, that if somebody was using the GPL driver, he'll lost > warranty et al. (But this is not the question.) Seems reasonable to me. This isn't license text. They're not saying you can't modify it; they're just saying you own the pieces if you modify it and break it. Is there an actual license? J