Thus, Raman Gupta at Mon Oct 29 08:57:07 2007 inscribed:
Anders Karlsson wrote:
[snip: suggestion to query the license
part on LKML]
Actually, to quote Linus on LKML, in discussion of whether or not
binary
modules are "derived" or not, specifically related to Nvidia:
"I think the NVidia people can probably reasonably honestly say that the
code they ported had _no_ Linux origin." [1]
Yes, I'm quite aware that many people will simply argue that it doesn't
matter what Linus thinks as he is not the sole copyright holder in the
kernel, and so on and so forth. Save it -- that's already at LKML too. Just
wanted to point out that the LKML archives are not as clear on this point
as you make out.
[1]
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234
This is true, and this is not a simple matter, even for legally
trained people. I simply think that while there is a question open on
the legality of certain drivers and packages, arguing about their
licenses and that Fedora should incorporate them no matter what is
counter-productive to the aims of *this* list.
The legal issue stems from the kernel side and the use of the module
interface to said kernel. This is not a distribution issue, this is an
issue related to the kernel, and as such, should in all honesty be
debated on the mailing list devoted to the kernel.
YMMV
--
Anders Karlsson <anders(a)trudheim.co.uk>
All-Round Linux Tinkerer & RHCE