On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:03:13PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:41:07PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:01:14AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > -snip- > > > Sophistry. It's clearly the form you "preferred" when you were writing > > > it. The GPL does not require that programs be well-written, it merely > > > requires a level playing field. > > > > So binary firmware is ok as long as it was not the vendor that wrote > > the driver? Wow isn't that ingenious. :P > > Actually a reverse engineered driver with blobs in it is probably > illegal since it is reproducing copyrighted code, I forgot to mention > that earlier. :) Well, quite. If you didn't write it then you *can't* license it under the GPL, because you don't own the copyright; if you did, then you have to give us the stuff you were working with. If it's not copyrightable (because it's too trivial) then obviously there aren't any issues with the GPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature