From: sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: 1 Mar 1993 01:52:06 -0500
}} In article <1993Mar1.061604.607@colorado.edu> drew@juliet.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
}}
}} The legal end of it could be tricky because of the GPL. With the
}} current system, Linux device drivers are an integral part of the
}} kernel. This means that the kernel + device drivers is a
}} derived work. As a derived work, source must be available for
}} the device drivers.
Question: What in the GPL prevents me from linking the kernel with
the supplied device drivers, and not redistributing it?
Yes, *if* I redistribute the mutated kernel, I have to supply source
to not violate the GPL. And because I only have the binaries, I can't
give the kernel away. That much is obvious. But I think I see people
claiming that I couldn't link a non-GPL'ed driver with the Linux
kernel, *just for my own use*.
Are people actually claiming this to be true? It's too ridiculous...
sjc@cs.purdue.edu Steve Chapin ...!purdue!sjc
"If you loose your arrow, you're likely to lose it in the weeds,"
was often heard in days of yore.
Beef: Real food for a dead planet.