[OT] The GPL and possible violations

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 15:43:24 UTC 2006


On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:14, Michael A. Peters wrote:

> > 
> > Isn't that the same claim that SCO has tried to make - that
> > anything developed for and compiled with the Unix kernel
> > is covered by their copyright and controlled by their
> > terms regardless of who wrote it?
> 
> No - not at all.
> Different scenario all together.

The laws don't change from one product to another.

> Ship a binary driver by itself - you aren't shipping any GPL code.
> nvidia could ship their driver with their video cards, for example - and
> be fine.

That seems to be a fuzzy area.

> But once you are shipping the kernel, you have to abide by the GPL or
> else you have no right to distribute the kernel at all. Since the binary
> module adds functionality to the kernel, it is a modification to the GPL
> product (kernel) you are shipping - and therefore has to be released
> with a GPL compatible license.

If the module is a separate file and doesn't infringe separately
then you'd be able to ship them together under the
'mere aggregration' clause.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com





More information about the users mailing list