[ale] Are our Ethernet drivers in danger?

[Bao C. Ha]

> 
> > There is absolutely nothing "restrictive" in the GPL: it 
> simply states
> > the already implied residual commitment of "public domain"; 
> the GPL is
> > simply reiterating that once public domain ideas are 
> submitted to the
> > community, they should remain in the public domain, 
> regardless if they
> > are employed with commercial or non commercial applications.
> 
> 	This is an interesting view given the specific 
> circumstances that originated 
> this discussion. Outside of such circumstances, however, I 
> would expect that 
> you would agree that the GPL is, by necessity of its purpose, quite 
> restrictive for those who perceive a need to protect their 
> intellectual 
> property through the use of trade secrets.

I disagree that GPL is restrictive.  Let discuss the specifics
relating to the Linux kernel, which is GPLed.  As mentioned
earlier, Linux software does not have to be licensed under GPL,
only modifications to the kernel are required.  And GPL only
applies if the modified GPLed code will be redistributable later.

If I want to protect my intellectual property which only works
by modifying the kernel like an ethernet device driver.  It
contained hardware advances that blah...blah...blah our marketing
advantages.  What do I do?

1. Choose another great platform like Windows, which have a much
more market share.

2. Or just build a proxy driver in the kernel.  Put the "real"
driver in the user space.  Proxy driver will be under GPLed, but
it does not reveal anything.  The "real" driver will be linked to
the LGPLed GNU libraries and distributed through binary only.  
Everybody is doing it so quit complaining.  

It is always possible to get around the GPL issue if a company is 
sincere enough about their contributions.  Intellectual property
protection is legitimate to the Linux community and we are trying
our best to accomodate the request through work-around.  Otherwise, 
I just view it as an attempt to hijack the community contributions 
for one's own advantages.  Greed is what has fragmented the BSD 
community and we don't need a repeat in history.  On the other hand, 
that may be what Microsoft is aiming all along!

> 	Back to your specific clarification, however, what 
> aspects of the ethernet 
> code are therefore in the public domain versus under the GPL? 
> Is there a way 
> of clearly identifying these differences? This should be 
> quite relevant to 
> the issue at hand.
> 

There is a difference between public domain and GPL.  I believe
something is public domain if the copyright owner has explicitly
abandoned his copyright ownership.  GPL or even BSD is not
public domain.  The copyright owner exerts his/her control by
explicitly assigning a license agreement.  

Bao
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.