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