Re: off topic: GPL and binary modules
From: Steven Rostedt (rostedt_at_goodmis.org)
Date: 03/31/05
- Previous message: Patrick Mochel: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- In reply to: Brian Gerst: "Re: off topic: GPL and binary modules"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:11:08 -0500
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 13:39 -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Emmanuel Papirakis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > before I go on, let me say that I did check the FAQ. I also checked
> > the available archives, but curiously did not find an answer to my
> > question (so I did Read The Fantastic Manual).
> >
> > As you know, most available drivers do come with the source code. But,
> > still, some come in binary form (often providing just enough code to
> > make them compliant with new kernel releases).
> >
> > Is this a GPL violation ? In any case, what is the official position
> > on the subject (is this legal or just tolerated) ?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Emmanuel
>
> Search the list archives, this has been flamed to death already.
You don't need to search very far. There's still a flame thread going on
today. Just search for
"Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!."
At least you were correct in putting in "off topic".
-- Steve
-
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/
- Previous message: Patrick Mochel: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- In reply to: Brian Gerst: "Re: off topic: GPL and binary modules"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
