On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is > > non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code > > will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free. Note > > that being able to redistribute the non-free code depends on *its* > > license, not on the license of the module being built with it.
> Well, i was afraid of that, but was hoping the "and distribute linked > combinations including the two" part would cover us a bit about this. Not unless they hold the copyright on the .o files, which doesn't sound like it's the case. > What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that > it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that > be enough ? Permission to redistribute both the .o files, and binary kernel modules built on top of them, would be sufficient. Nothing else is required for non-free; even a Debian-specific license is technically acceptable (though obviously not desirable). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgp365zUmDP01.pgp
Description: PGP signature
