Looking for tips on two possible GPL violations

[Ryan Thoryk]

Yeah, that would be a violation.  Only GPL code can be directly 
added/linked to the kernel; and currently only GPL modules are allowed 
(but there have been exceptions which taint the kernel, such as the nVidia 
drivers, which is why many companies are calling for an LGPL-like API for 
binary-only modules).

Ryan Thoryk
Unix and Network Specialist
ryan at tliquest.net


On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Teh Woot wrote:

> (I prefer to remain anonymous, for my own protection, my employer, and the
> two vendors whom I have not contacted yet, thank you)
>
> I'm fairly well versed with the GPL and what a violation is (from reading
> past news tidbits), so I would like someone else's verification that the the
> following is infact a GPL violation:
>
> Proprietary code linked directly into the Linux kernel (vmlinux/vmlinuz),
> with new symbols in 'nm vmlinux' output
>
> In both vendor's products, the code is something small.. but still.  Trying
> not to go the "public shame" route here....
>
> Thank you for your time
> .:xachrix
>