Re: Kernel source

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 21:33 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 17:36 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > That's an "issue" if that's the case.
> 
> It is the case.  NDIS is object code and it's linked to the GPL code.

but ndiswrapper isn't static linked

> No different than how Atheros does its WLAN module either.

atheros IS a problem.


> > that's the part where your lawyer will yell at you for being a
> > total idiot.
> 
> Be careful with that assertion.

For static linking to GPL? I've not even found a single lawyer who
thinks there is a gray area there. Dynamic linking to the kernel.. yes.
But not static linking.

> 
> > With dynamic linking it gets a bit of a gray area (is it
> > "derived" if you dynamic link? Is it still independent enough to be able
> > to ship it in one work? That's where you have to consult your lawyer to
> > get any meaningful answer, which may even vary per jurisdiction :)
> 
> If the non-GPL code was written for _another_OS_, how can it be a
> "derived work"?  That's basically what Linus said.

actually the test here is not "derived work". Derived work matters for
clause 3 but not for clause 2. That's where there is a difference
between static and dynamic linking. Static linking doesn't "need" the
derived work part.

And there is a gray area on at what point something stops being for
another OS... like how much are you allowed to change/add in other code
(and mind you, the "glue layer" then cannot be GPL or you violate clause
2 again, so if your glue layer is derived you have lost again anyway)


-- 

amd64-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list