[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[Matt Higgins]

Here is what linus thinks

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

On 2/17/06, Michael A. Peters <mpeters at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> routers came up.
>
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> source to their modifications.
>
> Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> kernel without also shipping the source.
>
> Any GPL license gurus have comment?
>
> The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
>
> I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> like comments from people who know it better than I do.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060217/92cca164/attachment-0001.htm>