David Newall wrote:The issue is all about "derivative works" in copyright law. Ndiswrapper is in a good position because the closed-source drivers were originally written for another OS so it's pretty well impossible to argue that they are derived from linux. However, if I were to write a new GPL shim and then a new closed-source module that uses the shim to access kernel symbols, it is entirely possible that a court could rule that my closed-source module is a derivative work of the linux kernel because it was written specifically to run on linux. On the other hand if I were to sit down and write an OS-agnostic proprietary chunk of code, and then write a new GPL shim to use it under linux (and maybe other shim layers for other OS's as well), I _might_ be okay. But I would have to be prepared to prove that the proprietary code was not derived from the Linux kernel. Chris --
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Martin Michlmayr | Network slowdown due to CFS |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Christos Zoulas | Re: Boot device confusion |
| Manuel Bouyer | Re: NFSv3 bug |
| Anders Magnusson | Re: setsockopt() compat issue |
| Martin Husemann | Re: Compressed vnd handling tested successfully |
