> Other then that, I'm being employed write a certain kernel level
> services that are to be deployed on RHEL.
> Due to specific reasons I cannot disclose (and as a matter of law) my
> company cannot release the code under GPL (though I might get a
> permission to release small unrelated parts of it). If indeed you
> represent the official Linux-kernel-dev-line, my employer should halt
> all Linux development and switch to BSD/Solaris/what-ever, right?
your companies lawyers should have read the GPL before, read
COPYING.modules from the RHEL4 kernel tree (or RHEL3) which has Linus'
position on this. And question themselves how on earth they can obey by
both clause 2 and clause 3 of the GPL... (for example: if you're going
to ship RHEL4 or the kernel together with your module, how on earth can
you reasonably argue that the compiled module is independent of the
kernel as clause 2 demands) And how much they like that you are
including kernel code into the binary you're going to distribute (via
the headers for example). It's your companies lawyers that need to
decide that, because it's their responsibility to make sure your company
obeys the law, and to defend it in court if they get chalanged.
If that means that they conclude the same as the lawyers I talked to
("it can't be done except in <totally unrealistic way>") and if that
means that the answer then is "then we don't do a Linux driver", then
you have the answer...
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list