From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264599AbTLHQMM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:12:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265432AbTLHQMM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:12:12 -0500 Received: from nimbus19.internetters.co.uk ([209.61.216.65]:60048 "HELO nimbus19.internetters.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264599AbTLHQMC (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:12:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: Alex Bennee To: gary ng Cc: Linux Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20031207023422.86164.qmail@web11506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031207023422.86164.qmail@web11506.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Hackers Inc Message-Id: <1070899731.2916.14.camel@cambridge.braddahead.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4-8mdk Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:08:51 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 02:34, gary ng wrote: > A driver > writer must be careful in these situations. But the > burden of proof should still be on the linux > community, not the other way round. How is the "community" meant to prove that a binary only driver is an infringing derivative of GPL'ed code? I suppose you could generate "signatures" for the inlines to compare against the binary, however it seems a little inequitable. I would suggest if your working with GPL code in making a binary-only product you should have done your homework and be prepared to argue why its not derived when asked. And I say that having written binary only drivers ;-) -- Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/ What an author likes to write most is his signature on the back of a cheque. -- Brendan Francis