James Rayner wrote:
> The alternative is
> modifying the kernel to allow these non gpl drivers, however I am
> unsure of the legality of this option.
Speaking of "legality", many kernel developers claim that loading *any* non-GPL
(as in: driver with
a license that is not GPL-compatible) driver in
Tom K wrote:
> Tobias Powalowski wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> we have a license problem with the new 2.6.16 kernel and intel modem drivers.
>> intel536ep and intel537,
>> atm there is no legal option to provide longer support for those drivers
>> with
>> kernels >= 2.6.16
>> my question is how many users
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 19:57 +1000, James Rayner wrote:
> The drivers no longer compile against 2.6.16, as the serial interface
> in 2.6.16, only links with drivers distributed under the GPL. To make
> the intel drivers so much as compile, we would essentially have to
> relicense them, which we have
On 3/30/06, Tom K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > Hi
> > we have a license problem with the new 2.6.16 kernel and intel modem
> > drivers.
> > intel536ep and intel537,
> > atm there is no legal option to provide longer support for those drivers
> > with
> > kernels >= 2.
Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Hi
> we have a license problem with the new 2.6.16 kernel and intel modem drivers.
> intel536ep and intel537,
> atm there is no legal option to provide longer support for those drivers with
> kernels >= 2.6.16
> my question is how many users out there have such modems?
>
Hi
we have a license problem with the new 2.6.16 kernel and intel modem drivers.
intel536ep and intel537,
atm there is no legal option to provide longer support for those drivers with
kernels >= 2.6.16
my question is how many users out there have such modems?
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
