On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But > we're talking about... > > 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more solid legal ground doing the latter. > 2. Patching it. > 3. Linking it with closed source code. You're not linking the kernel with closed source code. You're linking closed source code with the kernel. You're not making any changes to the kernel itself in the process. I'm not even sure why you'd have to patch the kernel. > 4. Distributing the result. You're distributing the closed source part that you wrote. You don't have to redistribute the kernel, since the intended recipient of your driver already has it. The only bits of the kernel that end up in the code you distribute are some symbol names. > > Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on > you to show that you were allowed to do it. Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a copyrighted work without a license. Even if that were so, the GPL gives you permission to make as many unmodified copies of the kernel as you wish. > I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy > of copyrighted stuff" =P You're not copying anything that is copyrighted by Linus and co, and that is my point. Just what is AMD/Nvidia distributing that Linus wrote? -- Rich
