On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Eduard Bloch wrote: > and kernel-patch-ethernet-drivers package. But the license is a bit > vague (see attachment). If I interpret all this lawyer-language > correctly, following things are problematic:
It looks like Intel is genuinely trying to do the right thing here. They essentially are granting the right to use any patents that may be covered in the software. > - they are talking about patents without beeing precise - this may lead > to GPL violations I don't see how it would. They've essentially said "if you would infringe any patents while writing this driver, you are licensed to use those patents in combination with GPL software." It is actually better that they do not specify which patents, because this general license eliminates any possibility of getting tangled in some other unrelated patent. (Although I doubt any patents they might have would interfere with a driver, anyway). More concern to me is the way in which they cover any software they might send you. If they are not sending you any, then it is moot, but if they are then you must make very sure not to use any of its code in your driver because it appears that the license does not permit it to be relicensed under GPL. > - they make a strange sounding statement about permitted combinations > with GPL, restricted to usage under GPL only - it looks like the old > KDE licensing trouble Since the driver would be GPL anyway, does this matter?
