From: Thomas Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ivan Jager wrote:
> >
> > I think this is the relevant part of the GPL, but you should still read
> > the whole license.
>
> Read Donald Becker's take on this. He wrote many of the NIC
> drivers in/for the linux kernel (including the DEC tulip driver)
[ This isn't legal advice. It's worth what you paid for it -- nothing. ]
I don't think any reasonable reading of the GPL could find that
you aren't allowed to make modifications to the source code
however you like and distribute that source code. And that
includes "porting" software to non-free O/Ses. Years ago we
used to talk about what the GPL prevented the recipient of
source code from doing and the example of printing it out and
lining the bottom of your birdcage was often given.
The GPL doesn't control the kinds of changes you make to
source code -- it controls the rights of the recipients of object
files to receive the source, and the rights of recipients of the
source or object files to redistribute them. When modifications
are made, the GPL requires that you note that you've modified
the code and that if you distribute the modified code, all of the
earlier rules apply.
My reading of the GPL is that you only get in trouble if you
distribute a GPL'd work as an essential part of a larger non-GPL'd
product. If you distribute the two separately, the terms of
distribution of the non-GPL'd work have no bearing on the GPL'd
work and vice versa. If you'd like an example of this, every
proprietary OS that has had a GPL'd program ported to it
should suffice. Proprietary OS vendors have been very careful
not to distribute GPL'd software as parts of their proprietary
OSes, but that hasn't kept GPL'd programs from being ported
to use non-GPL'd libraries and OSes.
I think 2 (b) of the license is responsible for the confusion -- but
the separate source code of a ported driver is not a combined
work. The work is combined when the driver is bound (or loaded)
into the kernel. So long as that kernel (or running kernel image)
isn't distributed the license hasn't been violated. The comments
after 2 (c) say (in my reading) that if the system functions without
the GPL'd code that none of these restrictions apply anyway.
> http://www.scyld.com/expert/license.html
>
> Non-GPL drivers for the linux kerenl are allowed
> explicitly by Linus.
Again, I don't see how a restriction here could be enforced.
-- Julie.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
