On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 05:10:04AM +1030, David Newall wrote: > The reasonable conclusion is that an original, non-derivative USB driver > can be written, and let's face it, a number of them have been referred > to in the course of this discussion.
A "driver" is not an "application" as you tried to reference in your prior quotes. It is a tiny portion of the whole kernel, and as such, does fall under the derivative works portion when it is run within the Linux kernel. So the comparison is quite different, sorry. Again, see the Samba decisions that have happened in the past when companies have tried to add modules to it that are not under the GPL. They have failed every single time, so there is a lot of precedent for this kind of thing. And again, this is not just my opinion. It is the legal opinion my lawyers and the lawyers of many large companies who deal with Linux every day. If you wish to disagree with this, fine. Consult with your own lawyer and make up your own mind. lkml and linux-usb is not for legal discussions, that's like asking lawyers for medical advice, you might get some good opinions, but then again, you can get a lot of crackpot ideas. This is going to be my last response on this thread, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
