3 ms·
>If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. There is debate about this, but there are certainly
by amscanne 11y ago
>If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes.
There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.)
> They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.
I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.
- icebraining 11y agoThere is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant. Sure, but have they pointed?
- amscanne 11y ago> Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I was referring to modules wrapped by ndiswrapper. Of course they are distributed. There are other examples as well: nvidia being a salient one.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]