Marcel Holtmann wrote:
if the overall intention is to write a Linux kernel module/driver then it counts as derivative work for me. No matter how tricky you are and much you try to circumvent or try to hide this fact. However that is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me here. Ask your legal counsel.
I think you're way of base here. Copyright doesn't cover intentions, it covers expression in a tangible form. So the intention is irrelevant, what is expressed in the file is what's relevant. If the file doesn't contain GPL code, then in itself it isn't subject to the GPL. [ If I were the author of such a file, then I would be highly upset at a bunch of people claiming rights over my independent work, just because it could possibly be linked with their code. ]
You have to make it GPL if you link it against a GPL shim. And in case the shim uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, the shim has to be GPL. Again, you don't have to agree with me, but I would advise legal counsel now.
It is entirely possible that there is no way of licensing a shim in such a way that it can be distributed with GPL code. I don't know, I haven't investigated this issue. But irrespective of this, the licensing of the shim doesn't affect the licensing of the non-GPL code in itself. People with lots of lawyers like NVidia seem to think that it is possible to create a license compatible shim. Maybe they are wrong.
To put this in clear and understandable words. The end user has to break the GPL license and thus violate the copyright of the kernel developers.
Not true. The GPL covers copying, not use. The end user is free to use the GPL code in almost any way they like, including linking it to non-GPL code. They just can't copy (ie. distribute) the result. Graeme Gill. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
