From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263475AbTLIXsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:48:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263485AbTLIXsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:48:06 -0500 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:420 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263475AbTLIXr7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:47:59 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Dale Whitchurch" , "linux-kernel" Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:47:53 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <1070979148.16262.63.camel@oktoberfest> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Is the GPL in effect for the kernel so that anybody can enhance the > current drivers and add support for any other device? If two companies > develop competing products and those products (albeit a few slight > differences) perform the same operations using almost the same hardware, > do we want one company to use the others driver? Assuming all the drivers are offered under the GPL, the kernel inclusion process is a meritocracy. In other words, good code gets added and bad code doesn't. The GPL provides unrestricted joinder and severance, so if the driver is GPL and the kernel is GPL, anyone who wants to can join them together under the GPL can do so. Linus would likely do this officially if the driver is reasonable, and anyone who cares enough can do the work needed to get it suitable for inclusion if the original company that offered the driver doesn't want to. DS