On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:50:39AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >Bah, wrong argument. Microsoft explicitly allows you to create a closed > >source kernel driver. > > You're making the assumption that an IHV needs Microsoft's permission to > create and distribute a closed source driver. That's never been > tested in court, which means no one really knows for sure, but I don't > think any IHV actually needs MS's permission. I believe that MS > "gives" permission onlyu to keep things simple and to eliminate the > need to go to court. Have you read the license agreement with the Microsoft DDK? It gives you that permission. It's not a "just to make you feel better" type of agreement. > >The Linux kernel does not allow you to do such a > >thing. > > I don't think the Linux kernel developers have the authority to give or > take away such a privilege. What? If not the copyright holders of the code, who does? > > In fact, numerous copyright holders of the Linux kernel (myself > >included) have explicitly stated that you are not allowed to do such a > >thing, and that would be very hard to defend against in court. > > I don't agree with that at all. Creating a driver that calls a kernel > API does not associate my driver with the kernel in any sense of > copyright. The two are separate entities. But then, that's just my > opinion, and IANAL, so I guess all we can do is agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but you are completly wrong. Please consult with an IP lawyer if you have any questions about this. greg k-h -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
