Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751617AbWCIVcO (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:32:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751877AbWCIVcO (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:32:14 -0500 Received: from uproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.92.206]:11926 "EHLO uproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbWCIVcO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:32:14 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=l2ZWKhII0QTE8dYG9uiUxiE1NlbcYBLbalzas9v48vHHYOvCaY/QJOANBGMeqT/1Kc5Qml01+fkL4jbVx3zq2SJtp8b1wt7KCq3ZQVxee7C2aft/Ftrdq8rCXbGuVKRs41m3ZPHtTx//hq8j2vHTxZyjG4THnlJf9oF4AkGtgOY= Message-ID: <9f7850090603091332m7517eaafrd9f180ec5a358a55@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:32:12 -0800 From: "marty fouts" To: "Dave Neuer" Subject: Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers. Cc: "Xavier Bestel" , "Phillip Susi" , Luke-Jr , "Anshuman Gholap" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <161717d50603091222p34b45065xdb8507cbf8191a3d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200603091509.06173.luke@dashjr.org> <441057D4.6030304@cfl.rr.com> <161717d50603090933o3df190f9vb1e06b0ec37deb8e@mail.gmail.com> <1141928755.7599.0.camel@bip.parateam.prv> <161717d50603091222p34b45065xdb8507cbf8191a3d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1728 Lines: 34 > But I stand by my assertion: many kernel developers on record stating > that they don't want their work used in binary-only modules, and the > reason that this hasn't been decided by a court yet is no sufficiently > deep-pocketed plaintiff (independantly wealthy kernel hackers or a big > corporation with copyright interest in the kernel) has decided to sue, > yet. > > See Linus' statements here: > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html > and here: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.1/0708.html > if you think I'm just pulling this stuff out of my butt. > Looking at Linus' arguments, how would you say those kernel developers feel about the following scenario: I have access to a 3rd party file system, written not for Linux but for some completely different OS. But my license with that vendor does not allow me to distribute the file system. I write the translation layer that they describe in their documentation that allows me to drop their file system, unchanged, into Linux. I GPL the translation layer and make the source available appropriately. (This is similar to the AFS point in Linus' email, but not exactly the same.) I do not, since I don't permission to, distribute the source for the third party OS. 1) Have I met my legal obligation under the GPL? (Seems to me Linus would say yes, but I want to understand other people's view on this.) 2) Will the developers you mention above be unhappy anyway, even if I have? - 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/