From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267978AbUH0VRe (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:17:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267831AbUH0VNV (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:13:21 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:46472 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267737AbUH0VJy (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:09:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:09:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Albert Cahalan cc: linux-kernel mailing list , pmarques@grupopie.com, greg@kroah.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal In-Reply-To: <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> Message-ID: References: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would > be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH) > that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers > using hooks are illegal. And they may be. As I said, your posturing doesn't matter. Using specialized hooks might very well be ruled to be a sign of being a derived work. When you get a court ruling saying otherwise, come back stating it as fact. Until then, it's considered a gray area. Linus