Re: final licence question.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:02:03AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
No, they do not, they don't even have the sources.
> > 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
I distribute a kernel-module-source package, so each user will have
to create his own binary module package, in this case, is the
distribution of the binary-kernel-module still needed.
> non-free; even a Debian-specific license is technically acceptable
> (though obviously not desirable).
Yes, altough if non-free does disappear ...