On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:11:12PM +0000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > I'm not an expert, but I hope my thoughts are helpful. > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > There is a problem though, the current module contains code they control > > plus a piece of proprietary code implementing a software ADSL decoder or > > somethign such, which they don't have the sources for. > > It might not make any difference, but does this proprietary code run > on the host, or is it downloaded onto an embedded system? I'm guessing > the latter.
No, it is run on the host, this is just a cheap software ADSL modem. > > The ideal solution would be to move the proprietary part out of the the > > actual kernel driver and into userspace, and they are working on this, i > > think, but it is still not ready. > > If you take the proprietary part out of the driver, then the driver > can be DFSG-free, but it still depends on the non-free stuff, so it > would have to go into contrib rather than main, I think. > > > Now, i believe that releasing this driver, in its current state, without > > moving the proprietary part into userspace, under the GPL is wrong, since > > they are linking proprietary closed source code, which will break the > > GPL of their driver and the linux kernel. > > I don't think it breaks the GPL of the kernel if the driver > communicates with the kernel only through the standard module > interface. However, there would be a problem with the driver itself > being GPL if some of the source is not available. > > > Would it be possible to release this under a GPL + exception licence, or > > something such ? > > I would guess it is possible. However, if the driver doesn't contain > anything very clever, perhaps they might be willing to release it > under a BSD licence or just make it public domain; it might be > simpler. Will this not cause problems when insmoding the module into a GPLed kernel ? > > It would still taint the kernel, > > I don't think so. Well, anything apart from a true GPL licence does say so when insmodding. > > and have to go into > > non-free, > > Yes. > > > but at least the code they wrote would be GPLed. > > It is indeed an advantage it at least part of the driver can be freely > modified and redistributed, but BSD or public-domain would achieve > that too. Ok. > > Also, i guess > > i cannot put a proprietary closed source stuff into even non-free, > > without at least a permission to redistribute it. > > Yes. > > > I will encounter i guess the same kind of problems when they move the > > proprietary part to userspace, i guess. > > If there is permission to redistribute the proprietary bit, then I > don't think it really helps to move the proprietary part to userspace. > For simplicity you might as well put the whole lot in non-free either > way. > > If there is no permission to redistribute the proprietary bit, then > there is an advantage in separating out the proprietary bit because > Debian can then at least distribute the free and distributable part in > contrib. Ok, ... Friendly, Sven Luther
