From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750717AbWAIV1W (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:27:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750718AbWAIV1W (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:27:22 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:7891 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750717AbWAIV1V (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:27:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Sony violating Linux GPL? From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ben Collins Cc: Salvador Fandino , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1136815034.1043.42.camel@grayson> References: <1136815034.1043.42.camel@grayson> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:27:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1136842032.2936.32.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 08:57 -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 14:22 +0100, Salvador Fandino wrote: > > Then I started mailing Vaio technical support (support@vaio-link.com), > > asking for the drivers source code, and after several mails they just > > refused to give me the drivers source code because "These drivers are > > directly delivered to us by the manufacturers of the hardware and > > modified by us and therefore we are not obliged to supply any source > > code for these drivers". > > > > I am not an expert on Linux internals but I doubt a driver for this kind > > of device could be developed independently enough of the kernel to not > > be considered a derived work, so is Sony violating the Linux license? > > They are correct. The deal with modules is they don't have to GPL them. there is no such agreement or deal. There is no exception to the GPL in this regard at all (but yes that's a semi common misconception/excuse used by binary driver people)