[3295] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Binary Driver Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Nance)
Tue Jun 18 13:44:08 1996
From: Jim Nance <Jim_Nance@avanticorp.com>
To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 08:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
Mike Kilburn wrote:
> Binary only drivers need to somehow be classified into those which are
> true hardware drivers and those which are "value-added" software extentions
> to the Linux kernel which in my view violate the GPL. I know this is tough
> and can be subjective and I really dont know how it could be done. Take
> the following example:
Hi Mike,
I am using part of your message as a jumping off point. Please dont
feel that I am attacking you, or even that I necessarily disagree with
you.
I think there is a strong temptation to interpret the GPL on the basis of
what we want it to mean, or what we intended it to mean, rather than as
a legal document. I believe that we should resist this temptation.
The legality of things like binary only modules can only really be decided
if someone sues someone else over the issue and a court issues a ruling.
We can get some idea of how a court would rule (at least in a particular
county) by looking at prior rulings in similar cases. Perhaps we should
make a list of relivant cases. The only case I know about was a point
in the dispute between Microsoft and Stacker (sp?). Microsoft claimed
that Stacker violated their copyrights because Stacker's product modified
the MSDOS binary. The court sided with Stacker.
There is the seperate issue of the ethics of doing something which would
be legal under the GPL but contrary to the wishes of the authors of the
software. In my mind ethical issues such as this are very dependant
on someones motivations for doing something.
Jim
