'GPL encumbrance problems'

[jdow]

From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10 at charter.net>
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:40 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>> jdow wrote:
>> 
>> > Andy, I am a software developer by trade. I use it to earn my daily bread
>> > and board. If I develop in an environment that involves GPL I cannot see a
>> > model that will continue to feed me and house me unless I take up a side
>> > job asking, "Do you want to supersize that, sir?" or sit at my own help
>> > desk all day instead of developing. GPL contaminates things too thoroughly.
>> > I am not a lawyer. I just read that document and basically stay away from
>> > GPL except for some recreational coding I've done.
>> 
>> I also design software and hardware... but depending on the field you
>> work in, GPL stuff can bring an awful lot of firepower to the party very
>> cheaply.  Again depending on the circumstance, the compataibility,
>> quality, time to market and royalty-free advanatages surrounding that
>> can overwhelm the possible competitive disadvantage of having to open
>> some of your stuff.
>> 
>> The general deal is AIUI if you link with GPL'd stuff -- not LGPL'd,
>> which will not infect what it links to but only changes to itself -- you
>> will have to open your work.  It seems that we crossed a threshold now
>> and the signs are that if you generate kernel modules you can expect
>> that sources will be demanded.
>> 
> Not necessarily.  Look at the nVidia and ATI video drivers. They are
> kernel modules and the source is not open. They use proprietary code in
> the drivers.

There are some young hotheads who insist that these drivers inherit
some GPL headers, at least. Hence they must be themselves GPLed. There
has been no serious effort to clarify the situation. It is in a rather
unstable balance situation as best I can determine. Rocking the boat
could result in no more drivers from manufacturers period. That would
not be good for Linux any more than opening their code in the intensely
competitive video board market would be good for nVidia or ATI.

It's these young hotheads and the existing "benign neglect" on the part
of the majority of kernel developers who COULD bring suit that leaves me
nervous. Some of what I have done for the show control industry involves
custom device driver-like gadgets designed to look like MIDI ports to
applications but in reality do something a little "different" like
control PLCs. If I give that code away "poof" I'm out of a market.

{o.o}