On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeff Brower <jbro...@signalogic.com> wrote: > Marcus- > >>> Alexander is asking excellent questions and I'm surprised at the tepid >>> response -- he's got like 4 replies so far? He's the prototype GNU >>> radio user who needs to maintain his group's IP, he should be >>> receiving "how to's", not "INALs". -Jeff >> Actually, IANAL is a perfectly-valid response. IP licensing >> arrangements are complicated and studded with sinkholes and minefields. >> >> I've avoided the issue (I hope!) in my proprietary "stuff" that uses Gnu >> Radio by doing two things: >> >> o minimizing the "stuff" that I do inside the flow-graph if I can >> conveniently do it outside >> o speaking to the flowgraph via named pipes and moving the >> proprietary and user-goop into non Gnu Radio compiled >> code. >> >> This is probably the safest thing that somebody who isn't a lawyer can >> do without consulting an (expensive) IPR lawyer. > > I agree this is a good approach with clear intent. Especially if you can > show things would work the same way if the > pipes connected over Ethernet to another server that did not have GNU radio > installed. > > Maybe if GRC had some blocks for this purpose... > > -Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >
How do the companies write closed-source drivers for the Linux Kernel without running into GPL2 issues? I can only recall that there is a "user-land" and a "kernel-land" driver, where the "kernel-land" is the only part that is open source. Is this correct? Perhaps that method could work well? _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio