Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752877AbWLVLeh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:34:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754811AbWLVLeh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:34:37 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:4228 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752877AbWLVLeg (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:34:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:39:03 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Dave Jones , Linus Torvalds , Willy Tarreau , karderio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] Message-ID: <20061221193902.GA4268@ucw.cz> References: <1166226982.12721.78.camel@localhost> <1166236356.12721.142.camel@localhost> <20061216064344.GF24090@1wt.eu> <20061216164947.GB31013@1wt.eu> <20061216183301.GA14286@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061216183301.GA14286@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1997 Lines: 47 Hi! > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 > > with their modules. > > ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like.. > > +ifdef STANDALONE > MODULE_LICENSE(GPL); > +endif > > This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it. > It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko, > but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds > incredibly dubious. > > Now, AGPGART has a murky past wrt licenses. It initally was imported > into the tree with the license "GPL plus additional rights". > Nowhere was it actually documented what those rights were, but I'm > fairly certain it wasn't to enable nonsense like the above. > As it came from the XFree86 folks, it's more likely they really meant > "Dual GPL/MIT" or similar. > > When I took over, any new code I wrote I explicitly set out to mark as GPL > code, as my modifications weren't being contributed back to X, they were > going back to the Linux kernel. ATI took those AGPv3 modifications from > a 2.5 kernel, backported them to their 2.4 driver, and when time came Do they actually distribute that AGPv3 + binary blob? In such case, you should simply ask them for the binary blob sources, and take them to the court if they refuse. RedHat should be big enough, and ATI certainly makes enough money... They'll probably resolve the problem fast if they feel legal actions are pending. Pavel -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. - 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/