On 15/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Chris Albertson wrote:
>There is no problem with binary drivers. The GPL provides
>a test where you can determine if linking non-GPL code is OK.
>Read the GPL or details but if the linked code uses a well
>defined interface and in theory there _could_ be multiple
>suppliers for the non-GPl'd binary then the binary, even when
>linked is not actualy part of your code but just something
>your GPL'd code "talks to". THere is no restriction on what
>GPL's code can comunicate with
>
>But that binary code _really_ must be "just something your software
>communicats with and they do provide a good test criteria.
>
>THere are many examples of binary drivers being linked to
>GPL's code. Just look at the Nvidia drivers in the Linux kernel
>or look at the Windows DLLs that Mplayer or Wine uses.
>
>
What you say is the same as my own (and others) conclusion.
But I am a bit dissapointed to find that FSF, the organization that
should promote the usage of open source actually is our worst enemy in
this. The rules set down by Stellman is ment to prevent the usage of
anything where the source code is not under GPL. I also get the
impression that FSF that controls the GPL is a rather closed society
where you and I basically can't participiate (I must be wrong?).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Openpbx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
--
Michal Bielicki
Halo Kwadrat Sp. z o.o.
http://www.asterisk.pl/
http://www.openpbx.org/
_______________________________________________ Openpbx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
