Marcel Holtmann wrote: >>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking >>> the GPL. >>> >> Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it >> would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be >> written and distributed as a module under any licence, proprietary or >> otherwise, presumably with the restriction that it may NOT be built-in. >> > > how to do you wanna write a new original Linux driver (modular or > built-in) without creating derivative work. >From what does it derive? Given a new, original work, created from scratch, could you point to another work, better yet show lines of code in common?
>>> You driver was meant to be >>> running as Linux kernel module and thus it is derivative work. >>> >> It is precisely the fact that it is a loadable module, and does not form >> part of the kernel, that removes the requirement to distribute it under GPL. >> > > That is such a nonsense. Stop distributing FUD and start talking to a > lawyer. You are clearly under some weird impression what the GPL means > and what it implies. > It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL. What I am doing is telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said. > If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and > with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that > license or don't use this symbol at all. > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is not a licence. Only a licence is a licence. > If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you link at runtime) then > you are in violation of the GPL license. We can't make it much clearer. > Your desire is clear, but the facts are bound to disappoint you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
