Re: Binary drivers and GPL

[Shawn Starr]

I am not a copyright holder. The only patch that got added to 2.5 was
very, very minor (trivial fix, 2 lines). My patchset is GPL but I still
have no copyright on this either.

I know you need to make money all and all and so do I. But, I could care
less if people decide to pull out of Linux because they can't make money
from it. It's not going to stop me from working on it for free.

I should mention this you do realize that if companies decide to use
binary only drivers it restricts my ability to work on a kernel thats
in constant development. This also ties in the DMCA (for those in the USA)
by not allowing reverse engineering on hardware and software
(because companies may decide to add 'security features') so now we can't
develop drivers anymore for fear of lawsuits. From there on it gets
really, really messy and that would bring development of drivers to a halt.

Shawn.

 On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick
wrote:

>
> Shawn,
>
> You can go download the IETF iSCSI working document.
> You and anyone less can go write a driver to replace me.
> I already stated, I will use another platform, like NetBSD if forced.
> This is not hardware unless I decide to use a CAM card, then the wrapper
> around the object in question becomes the GPL driver.
>
> I originally asked you offline as not to add more noise, while I am
> waiting to see what my peers who are the copyright holders have to say
> about the issue.
>
> Are you a copyright holder in the kernel today?
> If so, I can tell you will object on the LGPL issue and deny.
> Where is the files so I can evaluate my position now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
>