Hi Graeme, > > if the overall intention is to write a Linux kernel module/driver then > > it counts as derivative work for me. No matter how tricky you are and > > much you try to circumvent or try to hide this fact. However that is my > > personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me here. Ask your legal > > counsel. > > I think you're way of base here. Copyright doesn't cover intentions, > it covers expression in a tangible form. So the intention is irrelevant, > what is expressed in the file is what's relevant. If the file doesn't > contain GPL code, then in itself it isn't subject to the GPL. > > [ If I were the author of such a file, then I would be highly upset > at a bunch of people claiming rights over my independent work, > just because it could possibly be linked with their code. ]
nobody said that btw. You can write whatever code you want and put it under whatever license you want. But in the case you wanna write a kernel driver/module you have to use exported kernel symbols from this specific kernel that is released und GPL. This goes for me under derivative work. We are on the topic of kernel modules and not some other code. I am not a lawyer. So feel free to disagree with we :) > > You have to make it GPL if you link it against a GPL shim. And in case > > the shim uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, the shim has to be GPL. Again, you > > don't have to agree with me, but I would advise legal counsel now. > > It is entirely possible that there is no way of licensing a shim > in such a way that it can be distributed with GPL code. I don't > know, I haven't investigated this issue. But irrespective > of this, the licensing of the shim doesn't affect the > licensing of the non-GPL code in itself. People with lots > of lawyers like NVidia seem to think that it is possible > to create a license compatible shim. Maybe they are wrong. This has been stated so many times. If NVidia's legal counsel think they get away with it. Fine. My personal opinion is that they are violating the copyright of the kernel developers. > > To put this in clear and understandable words. The end user has to break > > the GPL license and thus violate the copyright of the kernel developers. > > Not true. The GPL covers copying, not use. The end user is free to > use the GPL code in almost any way they like, including linking > it to non-GPL code. They just can't copy (ie. distribute) the result. This is true, but the real-world problem here is that they have to keep the created binary to themself. Any kind of distribution would make them responsible to distribute the full source code (including build tools). I don't wanna even get into this area since it opens a total different can of worms :( Regards Marcel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
