From: raistlin@wixer.cactus.org (Eli Boaz) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 17:57:02 GMT
In article <1msbqmINN2p1@bredbeddle.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin) writes:
>
>Question: What in the GPL prevents me from linking the kernel with
>the supplied device drivers, and not redistributing it?
Nothing. I've read the the GPL backwards and forwards, and it doesn't
say that you can't link a proprietary object file with a GPL product.
You can't do much >after< this point other than run the resulting
program (ie. cannot redistribute 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...
If they are claiming that you can't link the [proprietary, non-source,
commercial, whatever] driver object file with something like the Linux
kernel, then whoever is claiming this needs to re-read the GPL.
And yes, it is ridiculous. . .
--
Reality is but an illusion; he who creates illusions creates realities.
"...sleep my friend and you will see, the dream is my reality..." -- Metallica
==============================================================================
E. Eli Boaz | raistlin@wixer.cactus.org | main(){for(;;) printf("party!!\n");}