Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262180AbVC2Esd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:48:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262181AbVC2Esd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:48:33 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:58551 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262180AbVC2Es1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:48:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:44:09 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Zan Lynx Cc: Aaron Gyes , Kyle Moffett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!. Message-ID: <20050329044409.GF7362@kroah.com> References: <1111886147.1495.3.camel@localhost> <490243b66dc7c3f592df7a7d0769dcb7@mac.com> <20050327181221.GB14502@kroah.com> <1112058277.14563.4.camel@localhost> <20050329033350.GA6990@kroah.com> <1112069010.12853.52.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1112069010.12853.52.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 32 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing > > the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code. > > As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need > > for it. And as such, the new code contains the _GPL markings, as I do > > not think that _anyone_ can try to claim that their code would not be a > > derived work of Linux who wants to use it (as no other OS has such a > > driver model interface.) > > That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used > for ndiswrapper, for example. That would not make the Windows net > drivers derived code of the Linux kernel. ndiswrapper, yes it would be. > Binary driver blobs, no. > > ndiswrapper is a perfect example, in fact. It is GPL, and implements an > _interface_ to binary code that is not GPL. And do your lawyers deem ndiswrapper as something that is legal under the GPL? The ones I have talked to definitely do not feel that way. Again, why are we, non-lawyers arguing about this. If you work for a company that deals with Linux kernel issues, and you have any questions about the legality of _anything_, get a legal opinion. Don't rely on lkml for this. greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/