On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski <curious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> you have two pieces of code, a userspace 3D *driver* (not >> application), and a kernel driver talking to the hw, if the userspace >> 3D driver cannot exist without the kernel driver, it could very well >> be considered a derivative work of the kernel driver. You are not >> protected by the standard Linux system call exception since it states >> "normal system calls", so adding a driver to the kernel to expose a >> bunch of driver specific ioctls to allow the userspace 3D work blurs >> the lines sufficiently that you are into the domain of derived works >> and should call your lawyers. > > so any user-written (gpl compatible) driver which exposes new ioctls > which allow other software to work (i.e. network driver allowing closed > source software to send and recieve packets is illegal aswell? > > it is getting confusing... You need to read before replying. If the interface is a generic interface that any software can use then its fine, when the interface is a specific interface for a specific closed userspace driver it becomes questionable. Again you are thinking general case when we are talking specifics. > > shall everyone hire lawyer prior to using any software under linux? > this is a peanut gallery comment, nobody mentioned using any software under linux here, we are talking about development of linux software. Please read and understand before replying with pointless emails like this. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
