From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262761AbTLDAw0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:52:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262784AbTLDAw0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:52:26 -0500 Received: from fork2.mail.Virginia.EDU ([128.143.2.192]:9453 "EHLO cms.mail.virginia.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262761AbTLDAwZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:52:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3FCE854A.70404@virginia.edu> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:52:26 -0500 From: Aaron Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <3FCDE5CA.2543.3E4EE6AA@localhost> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just >one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't >derived. > > Linus > > My question is a natural extension of this point and subsequent posts, When is a kernel so tainted it can no longer be considered GPL, or can no longer be considered free software? I write software for astronomical applications where some vendors give binary only drivers, or give you restricted access to the source code so I will some times load 5 or 6 devices that are binary only or at least non GPL. So what taint is allowable? Thanks, Aaron Smith Virginia Astronomical Instrumentation Laboratory Programmer PS sorry if this is a stupid question.