On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i fully support the notion you articulate, that whether bin-only modules > are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are > independent works is not an automatic thing at all. The answer is: "it > depends, talk to your lawyer".
I was actually trying to avoid the question altogether. It's not that interesting, largely because the answer is indeed 'talk to your lawyer'. > For example i'd say VMWare's ESX bin-only module is likely derived > from the Linux kernel and should be distributed under the GPL, but > that for example the ATI and nvidia drivers, although being a large > PITA for all of us, are possibly independent works. And thus not affected by the GPL _if_ they are distributed as separate works in their own right. But if you bundle them with the kernel into a product, the GPL has something to say about that. > but lets note that this is irrelevant to the Tivo argument. Tivo is not > using bin-only modules AFAIK, Right. It was a digression, which I picked up on because people were talking about derived works in the context of modules again, and missing the point that the most _obvious_ GPL violation with modules doesn't actually involve those modules being a derived work at all. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/