On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:43:47PM +0000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Wemm, but the driver minus the user space thingy is GPLed, and can be > > distributed with a standard kernel, and there is no breach of the GPL as > > long as nobody use it, right ? > > > > The same thing would apply if you simply moved the proprietary part into > > a separate kernel module, with just minimal API or something such, isn't > > it ? > > I think there is general consensus that splitting stuff into separate > components, distributed separately, is not a valid way of bypassing > the GPL. If you distribute stuff whose only plausible purpose is to
Well, if it is separated and there is a public api that the proprietary part uses, then i guess everyone could write their own free replacement, could they not ? it is just that nobody has done so yet. Also, if the proprietary part was separated, then i guess the it would be easier for the GPLed part to go into the kernel, and only ship the userland part with the board or something such. > end up on someone's system as part of a program containing both GPL > and GPL-incompatible parts, then you are infringing the copyright of > the authors of the GPL parts (unless they gave you some additional > permission). > > The distribution of GPL-incompatible kernel modules is possible > because modules that communicate via the standard module interface are > not considered to be part of the kernel, I think. Erm, so it would be ok for Bewan to distribute the free part under the GPL together with the proprietary part ? I think they still need an exception or something such. Would a BSD style licence be better in this case ? Friendly, Sven Luther
