Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965048AbWHQPzi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:55:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932548AbWHQPzi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:55:38 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:11396 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932543AbWHQPzg (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:55:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:52:15 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Grzegorz Kulewski Cc: Alan Cox , Adrian Bunk , Patrick McFarland , Arjan van de Ven , Anonymous User , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL Violation? Message-ID: <20060817155215.GA4233@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Grzegorz Kulewski , Alan Cox , Adrian Bunk , Patrick McFarland , Arjan van de Ven , Anonymous User , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <40d80630608162248y498cb970r97a14c582fd663e1@mail.gmail.com> <200608170242.40969.diablod3@gmail.com> <1155797656.4494.24.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200608170332.53556.diablod3@gmail.com> <20060817080243.GN7813@stusta.de> <1155822112.15195.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2158 Lines: 39 On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:31:53PM +0200, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: > Ok, that could be a reason. But then at least make such strong comment as > proposed later in my post and put it where people will be searching for it > - in COPYING file. Even if it will not be legally enforceable, it will > show the intentions of main authors and will anwser many people > questions. That assumes that the "main authors" want to spend time debating the point and making an official statement --- one that might not be held up in a court of law, afterwards. And in fact it assumes people want to waste time discussing this further in LKML, as well. When I asked the question of my IP Law professor when I was taking some classes at the Sloan School of Management 12 years ago, in his opinion a claim that the GPL could infect across a dynamic link would be "laughed out of court". But that wasn't legal advice, and there hasn't been legal precedent, and while as far as I know no court has ruled directly on that point in the past 12 years, there may be others that would cause a lawyer to be more or less certain about what might happen should it ever go to court. However, I am not a lawyer, and neither are most people on this list. Hence Alan's advice, "go see a lawyer"; a lawyer will listen to the facts of your situation, apply it to the law as it currently exists in a particular time and place, and tender you legal advice. But regardless of whether or not it is legal, a better and more stronger argument is that companies that try to use proprietary binary modules will not be able to service their customers as effectively, and thus be at a competitive disadvantage. From a code maintenance, and future-proofing point of view, you really, really, really want to have your device drivers in mainline. In my opinion, the legal arguments are only good for wasting bandwidth on mailing lists. - Ted - 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/