Hi, Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 09:55: > Scripsit Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> > The GPL is all about what *you* have to do if *you* distribute. It > does not in any way enable you to demand things from *others* who > distribute, unless you happen to hold a copyright on the thing they > distribute. Now I'm starting to get it. Guess you just made me feel bad about posting a lot of messages based upon a wrong assumption. Sorry everybody :-) But this new view leads me to other interesting effects: (assuming we are talking about a close source driver, coming in binary form, but under the GPL, distributed by the copyright holder) * The driver is under the GPL, and since I want to use it (not distribute it), I do not violate the GPL. * Therefore when linking with the kernel, the module should have full access to all functions and not taint the kernel. * This way, proprietary drivers can use the full kernel functionality, when downloaded directly from the copyright holder. Sure, the GPL does prohibit linking with GPL-incompatible code. But the driver is _under_ the GPL - there is just nobody that I can demand the source code from. I guess this is not right, but I wonder at what point I missed something. nomeata -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil