Ronald Vanschoren wrote: >> Note: Linux kernel modules need to be GPL, too - the only way to have >> non-GPL drivers in Linux is to have userspace drivers, which are quite >> limited in capabilities. >> >> > > This is not correct. GPL v2 talks about "derived work". It's well > accepted (by Linus himself and most of the community except the holier > then pope people) that binary kernel modules (so not releasing source > code) is acceptable IF the original driver was NOT written for Linux. If > it is merely ported to Linux, only the portation layer has to be > released. I think the NVIDIA drivers are an example. I know a company > who uses such binary drivers and was in contact with FSF who approved > the approach. > It seems you are right, and I remembered (partially) wrong - this sums it up nice:
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html However, this still means that if we implement a JTAG-cable module API, and you implement a JTAG cable driver that then calls FTD2XX, that module is probably still a derived work - you can't claim that such a module existed outside OpenOCD before and was just ported to OpenOCD. > To stay on topic, following this (FSF approved) interpretation of GPL > v2, FTD2XX is NOT a derived work of OpenOCD so it should not be released > under GPL. > Right. However, that is not the original problem that started the thread - the problem is that by linking OpenOCD with FTD2XX, you create a derived work which can not be distributed under GPL because the library is not GPL. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
