Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc. > > http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html > > Now, > > ---- > One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, > where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one > might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that > is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called > "blobs," are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating > system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) > > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in > its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary > video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't > link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. > ---- > > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception > for user space). > > Any thoughts?
Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Besides, I'm free to insert whatever modules I want in my kernel, so long as I don't distribute /proc/kcore. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
