[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