Colby- >> 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?
You can find many opinions either way. But as you mention, "the reality on the ground" is that commercial outfits often distribute binary-only versions of libraries and drivers, whether the license they're under actually permits that or not. Their argument that providing driver source would disclose proprietary information about their hardware is difficult to refute. Nvidia is one example. I continue to think future legal rulings will invoke interoperability to clarify this. Numerous people want to interoperate with Linux and still maintain their sauce as secret. Building cards that insert into servers is one obvious example. A smaller group of people want to interoperate similarly with GNU radio. Yes there are no lawyers posting here, but my point is these users should be supported in some formal, encouraged way. -Jeff > I thought GPLV2 was less onerous in this regard, and that case-law had > established that a loadable kernel driver didn't necessarily get > infected by the GPL virus. IANAL. TINLA. Etc. > > The last kernel driver I worked on we were planning to open-source as a > way of encouraging people to buy our (very closed-source!) chips. > Project fell apart before we hit market. Sigh. > > -- > Marcus Leech > Principal Investigator > Shirleys Bay Radio Astronomy Consortium > http://www.sbrac.org _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
