On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski <jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Companies have frequently been ... > applying their own interpretation of what constitutes derived work. >... > I have nothing against proprietary/closed source kernel modules as long as > they comply with the terms of the licenses of open source software that > they are using. They expect the same from you... >
It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license, but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright law. (I realize I truncated the first sentence I quoted, but you did use the word "or" so the second half has to be able to stand on its own. If you hadn't said it I'd have just said it for you.) I think the real issue here is what constitutes a "derived work." I suspect the GPU legal teams have given these practices a thumbs-up, and there is probably a reason that the Linux foundation hasn't tried to sue them over it. The reason neither party talks about it openly is probably because they can't be 100% sure which way a court will go so it isn't in anybody's interest to stir things up. However, that won't stop the Linux devs from trying to get companies to not write proprietary drivers, and it apparently isn't stopping driver devs from releasing proprietary drivers. -- Rich
