Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > [...] > So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers > (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) [...]
We all agree? Sorry, no. Even Linus himself says, it's a difficult topic and a "grey zone" at the moment. Some kernel developers say, third-party closed-source drivers are violating the GPL. This can only be true if such drivers, when linked into the kernel, can be considered as "derived from the kernel" - in this case, the closed-source driver is violating the GPL as the kernel itself is distributed under GPL license. However, it's not as clear as some people want us to believe that the third-party driver can be considered as "derived from". The question at the end of the day is how lawyers interpret the term "derived from". As a software developer, my understanding of "derived from" seems to be a bit different from other people's opinion... In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions - although some people don't like it. I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not help to solve the problem at all! Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
