Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | From | Alex Bennee <> | Date | Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:08:51 +0000 |
| |
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 02:34, gary ng wrote: > A driver > writer must be careful in these situations. But the > burden of proof should still be on the linux > community, not the other way round.
How is the "community" meant to prove that a binary only driver is an infringing derivative of GPL'ed code? I suppose you could generate "signatures" for the inlines to compare against the binary, however it seems a little inequitable. I would suggest if your working with GPL code in making a binary-only product you should have done your homework and be prepared to argue why its not derived when asked.
And I say that having written binary only drivers ;-)
-- Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/ What an author likes to write most is his signature on the back of a cheque. -- Brendan Francis
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |