Re: GPL question

[CafTgr]

Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote in message 
news:<mailman.827.1093949918.1998.gnu-misc-discuss@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
> + So let's do it...?
> 
> Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
> See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> 
> --