Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:04:22 -0600 | From | Robert Hancock <> | Subject | Re: Developing non-commercial drivers ? |
| |
Fredrik Markström wrote: > Thanks for the prompt respons. > > I do agree that it would be better for everyone to release it under > GPL and I have already expressed that to our customer. > > At this point I feel that we have two possibilities, help our customer > violate GPL or say no to the project. I'd prefer a third option where > I could tell the customer that we can setup the project in a certain > way (some "cleanroom" setup ?) to ensure that the results can not be > considered derived work.
The problem is that if it's coded specifically for Linux it's pretty much inherently a derived work. Things like the NVIDIA binary graphics driver, the old Atheros madwifi HAL stuff, etc. are on a little more solid ground as their binary part is theoretically OS-independent and there's an open-source shim layer to interface to the kernel, but some would say even they are taking some legal risk.
> > Is your short answer also the definite answer considering this ?
I don't think anyone on this list is a lawyer, and since this is a legal question, legal advice would be what I would suggest you and/or this company should have before considering going down the non-GPL driver road. The risk is mainly that a kernel contributor (or one of their employers like IBM, Red Hat, etc.) could sue them for violating the GPL.
> > /Fredrik > > > > > 2008/11/18 Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>: >> Fredrik Markström wrote: >>> Linus, others... >>> >>> I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting >>> Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much >>> up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to >>> protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC. >>> >>> My question is: Is there a fair way to do this and still comply to >>> the intent and spirit of the Linux licensing ? >>> >>> If yes, how ? >> In a word, I would say: no. >> >> When developing a non-GPL kernel driver, one finds themselves on very shaky >> legal ground. Unless one is 100% sure their code is not legally considered a >> derived work from the kernel, it's likely a GPL violation. >> >> One could point out the pile of other Ethernet drivers in the kernel from >> the likes of Intel, Broadcom, etc. and ask why those companies did not feel >> the need to "protect their IP" in this manner.. as well as the significant >> advantages of having their driver in the mainline kernel, and the horrible >> disadvantages of trying to manage closed-source drivers.. >> > -- 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/
| |