On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:48:58AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> We already have so-called "proprietary" code being included into
> the kernel. This started with "harmless" bits of binary which is
> uploaded into the hardware when some drivers are installed.
> Including such binary is also contrary to GPL, but without this
> secret goo, the hardware won't run.
> 
> This exception to GPL, in my opinion, opened the door to future
> corruption and exploitation. Time will tell.

Doesn't the copyright-holder of the work have the final decision wether or
not a non-GPL-modification may be inserted? I think the only change that
should be done then is a notice that this and that is non-GPL but permitted
by the copyright-holder...

Ofcourse, If you aren't the copyright-holder of the work (in his totality),
you need to contact the copyright-holder in order to receive (written)
permission...

Just a thought.

-- 
 Sven Vermeulen            -    Key-ID CDBA2FDB 
 LUG: http://www.lugwv.be  -    http://www.keyserver.net