The Kororaa project just issued a final statement about the GPL issue which arose earlier this year. "At this stage I have decided to take the opinion that non-GPL modules are violations of the Linux kernel and are also unethical. This means we will not build non-GPL drivers against the kernel and as such Kororaa will not be shipping non-GPL modules in any future products. Of course if the end user believes non-GPL drivers are acceptable, then he/she is free to install them on their own system. For myself however, I am using the Linux kernel to create a product. If it was not for Linux then it would not exist and I therefore have a responsibility to respect the license of the kernel."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-01
No, if you link to code under the GPL you are obligated to release code under the GPL, unless you do not distribute the binary. If you link to code under other licences your code cannot be distributed with GPL'ed code. There are exceptions for binaries linking to libraries.
If you wrote more clearly I'd understand you more correctly. If you didn't insult people they wouldn't respond in kind. If my grandmother had wheels she'd have been a wagon.
That's an extraordinarily patronising tone for someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
The GPL has a requirement that code linking to GPL software must be "at least as Free". Such a licence is then regarded as being "GPL-compatible". There are a whole gamut of GPL-compatible licences, which you can view here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicens...
For the record, the (non-ad clause) BSD licence is included in this this list. There would be absolutely no problem in including a Linux kernel module released under the BSD licence -- as the original poster said.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-07-06
> No, if you link to code under the GPL you are obligated to release code under the GPL, unless you
> do not distribute the binary. If you link to code under other licences your code cannot be distributed
> with GPL'ed code. There are exceptions for binaries linking to libraries.
So you are saying if I release code (full source and docs) that has a more free licence than GPL (ie for example if I put it into the public domain - free for all to use anyway they want) that GPL requires that the code be restricted more?
What little code I write is for two reasons, (a) to solve a problem I have, (b) to give out example code to help other solve simular problems. I want people to use my code freely, without guilt or restrictions.
If what you say about GPL is true, I can see why so many people don't trust it.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2006-04-21
Something with less restrictions than the GPL can be linked to the GPL code, there can be less, the effect is that a person can work with the code under the GPL or the free licence.
No, if you link to code under the GPL you are obligated to release code under the GPL, unless you do not distribute the binary. If you link to code under other licences your code cannot be distributed with GPL'ed code. There are exceptions for binaries linking to libraries.
Perhaps if you read more you'd understand these concepts of licensing.
If you wrote more clearly I'd understand you more correctly. If you didn't insult people they wouldn't respond in kind. If my grandmother had wheels she'd have been a wagon.