1 Sep 2004 01:23
Re: GPL question
CafTgr <caftgr <at> netscape.net>
2004-08-31 23:23:22 GMT
2004-08-31 23:23:22 GMT
Rui Miguel Seabra <rms <at> 1407.org> wrote in message news:<mailman.827.1093949918.1998.gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org>... > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 15:40 -0700, CafTgr wrote: > > We are not modifying the kernel in any way. We would like to protect > > our in-house software (that is, sell it without revealing the source). > > Does the GPL allow this? My impression is that it does given that we > > supply the source to the kernel (because it's GPL). Thanks in advance > > Regardless of what the GPL says, Linus has given some permission towards > linking of binary modules. > > However, I am confused with your notion of protection. For such a small > piece of softwar aren't you having a lot more costs in order to gain > such allegded protection than simply releasing the module under the GPL? > > It would even be likely it could get integrated and that would reduce a > lot the costs of development and maintainance as new Linux versions come > out. > > My impression is that you're raising your costs due to a perceived > protection that does not exist. > > Rui You're probably right, but it's not my decision to make :) > > -- > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi(Continue reading)
RSS Feed