> a) they are building on top of the linux kernel and if you feel as I
> do about GPL vs BSD then the module should be GPL. If 99% of the PVR
> is open source code, how _dare_ they hold 1% back!
Morally, you're right, of course. The GPL helps us all, and is a Good
Thing(tm).
Legally, though, it's not nearly as clear.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation gives some
examples of the difference between derivative works and aggregation; a
court *might* decide that a kernel module is part of a bigger programme,
and is therefore a derivative work (i.e. covered by the GPL) - but that's
not certain, so (for the timebeing at least) there appears to be room for
non-free modules alongside a GPL kernel. And LT's arguments about opening
the floodgates elsewhere ring rather too true for my liking; attempting to
plug this "loophole" (if that is what it is) runs the risk of outlawing
all sorts of desirable activities...
Vic.
