Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

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

-- 
+ 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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part