On Thu, 13 May 1999, Taral wrote:
> On 13 May 1999, Nolan Darilek wrote:
>
> > Last week I purchased an SBLive and downloaded the beta driver from
> > http://developer.soundblaster.com/linux/. The driver only includes 2
> > modules, though, and no source. Is this in violation of the GPL, since
> > they aren't providing the kernel source required to build the modules,
> > which are components of the full kernel? I thought I'd ask here, since
> > I'm hesitant to email a huge company with a doubtlessly large legal
> > staff and tell them that they aren't complying with the GPL.
>
> Linus made a specific licensing exception for binary modules.
Could someone please explain to me what the licensing issue is? If binary
modules are linked against GPL'd code, then they're GPL'd, right? (That's
why the LGPL exists.) And according to the GPL...
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
as expressly provided under this License."
That seems to indicate that the GPL permits no licensing exceptions.
Gee, I never thought about Linux and licensing. Does Linus hold the
copyright to all of the kernel code? Can a copyright holder change his
mind and use a different license from one release to the next? That would
defeat the purpose of the GPL, wouldn't it?
-------------------------------------------
Tom Bryan
Applied Research Laboratories
University of Texas at Austin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
