Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I offered instead that they write a GPL module that allows access to
what they need in the kernel through IOCTLs and move their binary-only
blob to userspace. This was acceptable to them and I believe it's the
correct legal solution myself (correct me if I'm wrong)
Well, if you want to be sure, I would suggest that they try to do a
couple of things:
1. Set in stone the kernel<->userspace API, and document it inside the
kernel module. This also means that the API must not change when the
kernel interfaces they export do. This is both a QA thing and a legal thing.
> 2. Try to make it as much a complete self-contained API as possible,
> preferably one that is useful to other people.
>
There is no need for this. Kernel module communicate with user space
applications (open or otherwise) via the system call interface (IOCTL,
mmap, open...).
Linus has made is specifically clear, in comment placed in the Linux
kernel source COPYING file, that program making use of the kernel
function via standart system call interface are NOT derived work.
So much as Linus can speak for the entire gang of kernel copyright
holders (and probably even if not because of estopel),your employers
seems to be in the clear.
<Shameless plug>
This might be a good time to mention that Ravia offices and Codefidence
have launched a service centered about providing commerical product
makers that utilize Open Source software with the legal and technical
tools they need to uphold the Open Source licenses while maintaining
control over their own generated software and other IP
</shamless plug>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
