Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751102AbVIOLp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:45:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751107AbVIOLp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:45:28 -0400 Received: from hermes.domdv.de ([193.102.202.1]:64777 "EHLO hermes.domdv.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102AbVIOLp1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:45:27 -0400 Message-ID: <43295ED5.1090309@domdv.de> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:45:25 +0200 From: Andreas Steinmetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050724) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: daniel.blueman@gmail.com CC: Runar Ingebrigtsen , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Help porting wireless InProComm IPN 2220 driver to 2.6 References: <6278d22205091503442c3973d4@mail.gmail.com> <43295825.90205@domdv.de> <6278d22205091504232ac3d8c3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6278d22205091504232ac3d8c3@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1566 Lines: 34 Daniel J Blueman wrote: > This depends if the module uses any symbols exported from the kernel > with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), and clearly the module license - 'strings' > should be enough do check this is you don't have a MIPS platform to > hand. Even then (I didn't check the binary yet), is it really legal to distribute a kernel source tree which contains sources with statements like the following? /****************************************************************************** Copyright (c) 2002-2003 Inprocomm, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying, compilation, modification, distribution or any other use whatsoever of this material is strictly prohibited except in accordance with a Software License Agreement with Inprocomm, Inc. ******************************************************************************/ This doesn't look exactly like GPL compatability to me, still it is _within_ the kernel tree. Note that I don't say they can't distribute a binary only module, it is the fact that it is located _within_ the kernel tree that, ahem, irritates me. I wouldn't say anything if there would be a separate 'source' tree for the proprietary module but: is distributing a kernel source with proprietary binary code embedded really legal? -- Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use robotrap@domdv.de - 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/