On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 08:35, Alan wrote: > > Not the license - the implication that binary driver modules are > > an illegal derived worked based on the kernel's copyrighted code. > > Until someone proves this unlikely claim in court > > The lawyers I've discussed this issue with don't find it particularly > "unlikely". However in the case you ship both binaries to someone then > the situation is much much clearer (as you'll note you have to build the > binary to match each kernel and the glue includes pieces of the kernel > definitions). So, if you really think that companies providing drivers that make Linux usable are your enemies, let's see a lawsuit and get the FUD over with. But, you'll have to deal with people who remember that Linus was widely quoted in early interviews saying that the GPL did not cover code using the module interface. A bait-and-switch approach is going to drive a lot of people away. I'd guess a lot of work went into Linux instead of the BSDs (then threatened by the AT&T lawsuit) specifically because of that claim. My only concern in the matter is that I'd like to see a real alternative to Microsoft develop, and it's just not going to happen if you keep trying to drive away the people who are doing the best they can to help. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
