Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754132AbYKRQwd (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:52:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752047AbYKRQwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:52:25 -0500 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.243]:9652 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751050AbYKRQwZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:52:25 -0500 Message-ID: <7a9e70560811180852y9eb2bf6s8682609dcb10fd9f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:52:21 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fredrik_Markstr=F6m?=" To: "Robert Hancock" Subject: Re: Developing non-commercial drivers ? Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4922ED5A.3030808@shaw.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <4922ED5A.3030808@shaw.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1935 Lines: 50 Thanks for the prompt respons. I do agree that it would be better for everyone to release it under GPL and I have already expressed that to our customer. At this point I feel that we have two possibilities, help our customer violate GPL or say no to the project. I'd prefer a third option where I could tell the customer that we can setup the project in a certain way (some "cleanroom" setup ?) to ensure that the results can not be considered derived work. Is your short answer also the definite answer considering this ? /Fredrik 2008/11/18 Robert Hancock : > Fredrik Markstr?m wrote: >> >> Linus, others... >> >> I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting >> Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much >> up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to >> protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC. >> >> My question is: Is there a fair way to do this and still comply to >> the intent and spirit of the Linux licensing ? >> >> If yes, how ? > > In a word, I would say: no. > > When developing a non-GPL kernel driver, one finds themselves on very shaky > legal ground. Unless one is 100% sure their code is not legally considered a > derived work from the kernel, it's likely a GPL violation. > > One could point out the pile of other Ethernet drivers in the kernel from > the likes of Intel, Broadcom, etc. and ask why those companies did not feel > the need to "protect their IP" in this manner.. as well as the significant > advantages of having their driver in the mainline kernel, and the horrible > disadvantages of trying to manage closed-source drivers.. > -- 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/