Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932393AbWCMXJo (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:09:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932507AbWCMXJo (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:09:44 -0500 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:50608 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932393AbWCMXJn (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:09:43 -0500 Subject: RE: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers. From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Lee Revell Cc: Tim Tassonis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1142277311.13256.9.camel@mindpipe> References: <4415C15F.4020500@cubic.ch> <1142277311.13256.9.camel@mindpipe> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: http://www.firmix.at/ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:06:55 +0100 Message-Id: <1142291215.8407.48.camel@gimli.at.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1843 Lines: 45 On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 14:15 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: [...] > No I was referring to the implication that the GPL is not enforceable > under US copyright law. Sorry, but where and how did I my sentences implies that? The email spoke about "libraries" and "applications" which have under the GPL also legal semantics (especially if you use both in the same sentence) which IMHO do not apply to "kernel and drivers". Or the original author sees the core kernel as a "library" and his driver as an "application" (which is IMHO in the sense of th reasoning if I read the analogy correct). And the whole chain of reasoning lacks IMHO important conditions like under which rules you actually acquired the rights to the source you *based your work on*. If your work is not based on that GPL source, it is a completely other thing (and discussion). So at most I killed the prove/reasoning as such. But this doesn't imply that it's result is wrong (as there may be another one). If the GPL would not be enforcable under US law (which is AFAIK not the case), the GPL would be probably dead anyway since it was written in the US by US people with the US jurisdiction in mind AFAIK. You should hear Austrian lawyers speaking about their problems with "the GPL and Austrian law" (or German law - if Austria is too small to be relevant - which is not that different in many aspects). Yes, it got better in the last year. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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/