LinkSys and binary modules [LWN.net]

LinkSys and binary modules

Posted Oct 16, 2003 5:29 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: LinkSys and binary modules by pjm
Parent article: LinkSys and binary modules

> It is permissable to use GPL'd code with non-GPL'd additions

Yes. The GPL only covers distribution.

(Log in to post comments)

LinkSys and binary modules

Posted Oct 16, 2003 9:57 UTC (Thu) by zmower (subscriber, #3005) [Link]

So potentialy anyone who owns a LinkSys router could sue LinkSys for non-compliance with the GPL. I think (but IANAL) that the source for the binary module would have to be released if anyone did this. I'd defer to the FSF's judgement on this issue though as they have lawyers. And I don't have this hardware. I do have a Nvidia card (still getting my moneys worth out of a Geforce 256) but they seem to have thought about this issue much more than Linksys/Broadcom.

I don't think this case has been good for linux though. If you have proprietry hardware and want to keep your drivers closed then you really are at best entering an area of shady legality. I wonder if xBSD will gain on linux from this? Nightmare scenario: Desktop BSD with drivers to run all kit but still runs GPL software. Wake up screaming nightmare: released by M$. Now that would be embrace and extend.

LinkSys and binary modules

Posted Oct 16, 2003 18:22 UTC (Thu) by andrel (subscriber, #5166) [Link]

As far as the legal system is concerned, the only people harmed by copyright infringement (that's what a GPL violation is) are the copyright holders. So the kernel authors could sue, but people who purchase the router can't.

Binary drivers aren't in any of our long-term interest -- cases like this which push hardware manufacturers to publish the bus-level interface instead of crappy drivers are a good thing. If I wanted to be forced to use closed source drivers I'd run SCO or Microsoft, not GNU/Linux.