Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

From: Aaron Smith (aws4y_at_virginia.edu)
Date: 12/04/03

  • Next message: Samuel Flory: "Re: Serial ATA (SATA) for Linux status report" 
    Date:	Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:52:26 -0500
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

    >So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just
    >one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't
    >derived.
    >
    > Linus
    >
    >
    My question is a natural extension of this point and subsequent posts,
    When is a kernel so tainted it can no longer be considered GPL, or can
    no longer be considered free software? I write software for astronomical
    applications where some vendors give binary only drivers, or give you
    restricted access to the source code so I will some times load 5 or 6
    devices that are binary only or at least non GPL. So what taint is
    allowable?

    Thanks,
    Aaron Smith
    Virginia Astronomical Instrumentation Laboratory
    Programmer

    PS sorry if this is a stupid question.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Samuel Flory: "Re: Serial ATA (SATA) for Linux status report"