[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: final licence question.



On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> > If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
> > non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
> > will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free.  Note
> > that being able to redistribute the non-free code depends on *its*
> > license, not on the license of the module being built with it.

> Well, i was afraid of that, but was hoping the "and distribute linked
> combinations including the two" part would cover us a bit about this.

Not unless they hold the copyright on the .o files, which doesn't sound
like it's the case.

> What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that
> it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that
> be enough ?

Permission to redistribute both the .o files, and binary kernel modules
built on top of them, would be sufficient.  Nothing else is required for
non-free; even a Debian-specific license is technically acceptable
(though obviously not desirable).

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpYK8mVUZXAy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: