+++ James [03-11-27 17:38 +0000]:
> 
> > > I'm unclear about non GPL code in the kernel, what are the
> > > implications of this.
> > Binary only drivers are legal only if they don't include any GPL executable

Even that is a matter of opinion. Many kernel contributors are not
happy about Linus 'exception' which only means that Linus won't sue you. And
anyway we all know we're not interested in binary-only drivers. If that's
all we can get then a chip is not going to be acceptable.

> No I'd really not want binary, I assumed you meant non
> GPL, source code.  The problem with both binary and
> non-GPL is that it I think (need to ask lawyers) t makes
> it impossible for me to distribute a boot yaffs image
> containing any GPL code.

I don't think it's quite that drastic. A YAFFS image would be a collection
of code, not linked code. Not all of it has to be GPLed (otherwise you
couldn't distribute any propietary software in your device).

Whther you could include a module which was under a different licence would
(I think) depend on the license. It's certainly been argued cogently by
David Woodhouse amongst others that you can't include a binary module in a
filesystem image (see the linksys router debate about a month ago). I'm not
sure if anything changes if the module is under some other free license.

I recall Nick asked me to check out the licensing on these drivers/devices a
while ago and I haven't done it yet. I'll have a proper look tomorrow. Must
dash.

Wookey
-- 
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK  Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/     play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/