On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:56:52PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Iau, 2006-01-19 at 10:30 -0600, Jay Maynard wrote: > > I do not agree at all that LKMs "almost certainly violate the GPL", > > considering that Linus has said they do not. > Linus is only one copyright holder and he's hardly said "they do not" > just that they maybe don't in some cases.
I'd understood that his position was that code that used defined interfaces to the kernel but was not distributed as part of it did not have to fall under the GPL. I will, however, bow to your much more intimate knowledge. > Its an area of law that deals with derivative works and its murky, > confusing and lacks precedent in this area. ...just like the rest of the licensing issues around open source software. Imagine that. > In practical terms I think most folks are much too busy chasing all the > straight forward pirate and rip off merchants to worry about legal > corner cases right now. Indeed. There are enough people out there blatantly violating the GPL to push questionable stuff like this way down the stack. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.cx http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
