Re: final licence question.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:15:50AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > 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.
> If you aren't going to build the kernel module at all, then only
> permission to redistribute the original .o files is required. In fact,
> if you're not going to build the kernel module, we don't even need a GPL
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the
redistribution rights of the proprietary .o nonethless.
My contact at Bewan is away until november 25, so i guess nothing will
happen before it.
I also have made the drivers available on a private site in the meantime
for those that need them.