T. Lodewick wrote: > [...] > thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also > ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers > "c't" from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have > an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of > the paper.
You could not provide the references, therefore your arguments cannot be verified. In a nutshell, your arguments are therefore of no relevance at the moment. > [...] > I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) > isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a > (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views: > > - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law > - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court > > I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and > I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a > solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and > make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros > to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch > drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the > rights they have. I would like to know whether binary-only kernel drivers, when linked into the GPLed kernel, violate the GPL license. Nobody has been able to show a proof of this statement so far. You are now talking about the general acceptance of the GPL license and whether German courts recognize the importance of the GPL license etc. Yes, they do and that's good! But this is not the point here. It's only about a very simple question, now already mentioned several times. But the answer seems to be very very complicated. And I am not lawyer... > [...] > thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have > there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and > with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" > against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't > solve the problem at all too. It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. The whole discussion would stop if somebody actually had an evidence of this statement. At the moment, it's just a statement without any proof. I believe in open source and open source drivers, so my email cannot be cheap propaganda against it, and indeed it isn't. I am only asking for evidence because I am not taking everything for granted! If this evidence does not exist, then people should stop blaming closed-source drivers and stop threatening companies that produce/distribute these drivers. If the evidence exists, then it should be made public and closed-source drivers should be banned completely. We cannot go on with this "grey zone" that's why I am asking for clarification. Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
