Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:47:18PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote: > > > or better or whatever. cool, no problem. what? you signed a NDA that > > does not allow you distribute the os in the first place? your bad. > > Once again, and now in capitals. > > IT'S ONLY THE HDMI DRIVER. THE REST OF THE KERNEL IS GPL AND YOU CAN > FIDDLE WITH IT AS YOU LIKE.
maybe i should just shut up and let you believe whatever you want and this is clearly my last mail to this thread. i guess others or even you are already bored to death by this topic anyway. but its summer slump, so who cares. i tried to explain multiple times why a binary module is not compatible with the gpl and why it is not relevant in any way that one can recompile or upgrade the kernel "sacrificing a fundamental feature of the hardware (speak HDMI)". maybe i'm just not capable to make myself clear and/or find the right words so let me quote mr. linus torvalds stating (many times) that binary kernel modules are "by default" a derived work of the kernel and thus must be licensed (at least additionally) under gpl: > [..] > In the binary kernel module case, a bug in the code corrupts random > data structures, or accesses kernel internals without holding the > proper locks, or does a million other things wrong, because a kernel > module is very intimately linked with the kernel. > > A kernel module is not a separate work, and can in no way be seen as > "part of the hardware". It's very much a part of the kernel. And the > kernel developers require that such code be GPLd so that it can be > fixed, or, if there's a valid argument that it's not a derived work > and not GPLd, then the kernel developers who have to support the end > result mess most definitely do need to know about the taint. > [..] so what is a "valid argument" that a module is NOT a "derived work"? [..] > Similarly, historically there was a much stronger argument for things > like AFS and some of the binary drivers (long forgotten now) for > having been developed totally independently of Linux: they literally > were developed before Linux even existed, by people who had zero > knowledge of Linux. That tends to strengthen the argument that they > clearly aren't derived. > > In contrast, these days it would be hard to argue that a new driver or > filesystem was developed without any thought of Linux. I think the > NVidia people can probably reasonably honestly say that the code they > ported had no Linux origin. But quite frankly, I'd be less inclined to > believe that for some other projects out there. > > Linus best regards ... clemens _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr