Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:52:26 -0500 | From | Aaron Smith <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
>So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just >one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't >derived. > > Linus > > My question is a natural extension of this point and subsequent posts, When is a kernel so tainted it can no longer be considered GPL, or can no longer be considered free software? I write software for astronomical applications where some vendors give binary only drivers, or give you restricted access to the source code so I will some times load 5 or 6 devices that are binary only or at least non GPL. So what taint is allowable?
Thanks, Aaron Smith Virginia Astronomical Instrumentation Laboratory Programmer
PS sorry if this is a stupid question.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |