From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263810AbTLJTV4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263598AbTLJTVz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:55 -0500 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([80.146.160.66]:55996 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263810AbTLJTVx (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:53 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD76EA3.5020905@colorfullife.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:11 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: torvalds@osdl.org CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andre Hedrick Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus wrote: >Everything else, you need to convince _your_ lawyers that it is ok before >you do it. They may say "go ahead". But you're not getting a "get out of >jail" card from _me_. > > The main danger for a binary-only module are not the developers or Linux companies, but litigation companies (SCO?): They have the lawyers, they either own or could buy some copyright of the kernel, and they don't have a reputation that they would loose. But they would probably settle for a (large) fraction of the court cost to prove your case, so there is little danger to get into jail for criminal copyright infringement... -- Manfred