DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=CEgvg0AS0tpMTAEoB4nJp6iCVltuEorRE9Z+R64CH4tBfBX8Nwn1X73lLm0LPHOKpQ52r9efwqf9VE46i4WEIC8JNt+FpFLdsrqECHTnjZNEr8lwtA0STISXWIyfhtJJ3d1QeB07tU5r3f2tH70n34owQZXvG5Jz3mqgnsaJ2kY=
Message-ID: <3d57814d0702150335q19a6b682l97c1d6e835ab71c0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:35:17 +1000
From: "Trent Waddington" <trent.waddington@gmail.com>
To: "Dave Jones" <davej@redhat.com>, "Xavier Bestel" <xavier.bestel@free.fr>,
       "Mohammed Gamal" <m.gamal005@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
In-Reply-To: <20070215111559.GA8353@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <9b3a62ab0702142115m4ea7d2c0m6869eb64ef3ee14e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9b3a62ab0702142116n4069e16cl1bc8f546f41d935@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070215061149.GE15654@redhat.com>
	 <9b3a62ab0702142227j19386132s870a0e745cfbb8d1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070214231143.11ff6b46.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
	 <9b3a62ab0702142328h87365b6i932d4f2c117f7f0e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1171533690.5835.40.camel@frg-rhel40-em64t-03>
	 <52d4a3890702150251w7751da0cve55c6f2cf64e1b8e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1171537256.5835.60.camel@frg-rhel40-em64t-03>
	 <20070215111559.GA8353@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1284
Lines: 29

On 2/15/07, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and
> a half since I first brought this questionable act to their
> attention.

Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think.  If
ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at all, and ATI has taken their
lawyers' advice, then the advice would have been:  we believe the risk
of liability is acceptable.

The only reason I can imagine why a lawyer would advise a client that
it is an acceptable risk to do something legally questionable with the
linux kernel is that so few kernel people have been sued for, or given
notice of, an infringement.

If any of the kernel developers, other than Harald Welte, are
enforcing their copyright, they don't tend to publicize it.

I, personally, don't know why anyone who owned copyright on any GPL
software and had no desire to enforce that copyright, would not offer
to assign their copyright to the FSF so they can defend it.. but I
imagine people have their reasons.

Trent
-
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/