Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Possible GPL infringement in Broadcom-based routers | Date | Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:06:33 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
"Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com> said:
[...]
> I think you're missing the idea that that such drivers are > _contributory_ infringement to the direct infringement that occurs when > the user loads the module. In other words, even for a driver that has > not a byte of code derived from the kernel, if all its uses involve it > being loaded into a GPL'ed kernel to form an infringing derivative > work in RAM by the user committing direct copyright infringement against > numerous GPL'ed kernel components, then it fails the test of having > a substantial non-infringing use, as established in the Betamax decision, > and distributing it is contributory infringement of those GPL'ed > components of the kernel.
This is nonsense: If so, I'd be commiting a crime each time I fire up emacs on Solaris (linking (GPLed) emacs to (propietary) libc in RAM). [Yes, just an example; haven't done so for the best part of 5 years now...]
Besides, Linus has _explicitly_ said that binary (closed source) modules are OK (under certain conditions). And AFAIU there was legitimate discussion wether this particular excemption was required at al. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
| |