The Intel driver does not meet test #2 of the Open Source Definition because
it has been deliberately obfuscated.
I agree with other posters that the best use of the software is as notes
for writing an un-obfuscated, GPL version.
Someone was clueless at Intel for shooting themselves in the foot this way.
They would lose nothing by distributing an unobfuscated driver.
Thanks
Bruce
On 26-Oct-99 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> You can't add a patch to
>> non-GPL code and declare the patch to be GPL, nor does anyone other
>> than the copyrigth holder have the right to change the license.
>>
>
> Yes you can. That is, in fact, the main distinction between BSD
> (where you can do exactly that) and GPL (where you cannot.)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
> No, that's not true. All that code is still under the BSD license; its just
> that there's no obligation for them to give you the source. The BSD license is
> compatible with proprietary licenses, so the aggregate can be released under a
> proprietary license.
>
> The GPL is not compatible with any license which prevents you from getting the
> source (and other details), so no aggregate can be licensed under anything
> which does not free the source.
>
> Note that by "aggregate" I don't mean "mere aggregation" as used in the GPL; I
> mean code from various sources which are linked into a single program.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/