On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:02:03AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
No, they do not, they don't even have the sources. > > 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 I distribute a kernel-module-source package, so each user will have to create his own binary module package, in this case, is the distribution of the binary-kernel-module still needed. > non-free; even a Debian-specific license is technically acceptable > (though obviously not desirable). Yes, altough if non-free does disappear ... Friendly, Sven Luther
