[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[jdow]

Another troll. This list is turning pretty sour - again.

View the LKML archives. This issue has been hashed over and over and
over again. There is no need to do so again.

{o.o}
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters at mac.com>


> 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.