From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263946AbTLEMJT (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:09:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263953AbTLEMJT (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:09:19 -0500 Received: from as13-5-5.has.s.bonet.se ([217.215.179.23]:53141 "EHLO K-7.stesmi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263946AbTLEMJR (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:09:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD07611.4050709@stesmi.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:01 +0100 From: Stefan Smietanowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Helge Hafting CC: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" , Jason Kingsland , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <3FCF696F.4000605@softhome.net> <3FD067CF.4010207@aitel.hist.no> In-Reply-To: <3FD067CF.4010207@aitel.hist.no> 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 Helge Hafting wrote: > Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: > >> GPL is about distribution. >> >> e.g. NVidia can distribute .o file (with whatever license they have >> to) and nvidia.{c,h} files (even under GPL license). >> Then install.sh may do on behalf of user "gcc nvidia.c blob.o -o >> nvidia.ko". Resulting module are not going to be distributed - it is >> already at hand of end-user. So no violation of GPL whatsoever. > > > Open source still win if they do this. Anybody interested > may then read the restricted source and find out how > the chip works. They may then write an open driver > from scratch, using the knowledge. What I think he means is that nvidia.c only contains glue code and blob.o contains the secret parts just like the current driver from nvidia. // Stefan