On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:15:50AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > 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. > > If you aren't going to build the kernel module at all, then only > permission to redistribute the original .o files is required. In fact, > if you're not going to build the kernel module, we don't even need a GPL > exemption.
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on something you do in-house. But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the redistribution rights of the proprietary .o nonethless. My contact at Bewan is away until november 25, so i guess nothing will happen before it. I also have made the drivers available on a private site in the meantime for those that need them. Friendly, Sven Luther
