PCI NVRAM Memory Card
"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>:
Quoted 15 lines
Followup to: <[email protected]> By author: Mike Jadon <[email protected]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernelQuoted 11 lines
My company has released a PCI NVRAM memory card but we haven't developed a Linux driver for it yet. We want the driver to be open to developers to build upon. Is there a specific path we should follow with this being our goal? In researching Linux driver development I have come across "GPL" or "LGPL". Where do you recommend we go to find out more about this development process?
Thanks and my apologies for using a technical forum for this question, but wanted to go to the right source.
Quoted 7 lines
Since you're willing to open the source, you are probably best off making the kernel portion of your driver GPL and submit it for integration into the main kernel tree. The drivers included in the main kernel tree tend to be the ones that work reliably over time, and are therefore most valuable to your customers.
As someone else mentioned, user-space libraries should be LGPL.
Actually, the libraries only should be LGPL if you are still intending to release the source to the library. You can use your own license if they contain propriatary information, but you wish to allow other developers to USE the library with new applications which may or may not be GPL.
It gets tricky to word the license such that you don't take over any license used for the other applications that link with your propriatary library.
Applications can be GPL or propriatary with whatever license you choose.
Please check with real lawyers for the truly "right source".
Quoted 9 lines
It should be pointed out that you, as the copyright holder, can "dual-license" the code if you want to use the same code for closed-source projects. If so, the mention of the dual license nature should be specified in the open code, to keep you from getting in a sticky situation when someone submits patches. The most formal such license is probably the MPL (Mozilla Public License); I do not know if MPL'd code would be considered "GPL compatible" and therefore eligible for inclusion in the main kernel.
Quoted 7 lines
Another possible license used in a few places is the "New BSD" license (as opposed to the "Old BSD" license, with the so-called "advertising clause".) The BSD license allows *anyone* (including yourselves, of course, but also your competitors) to take the code and use it in a closed-source project.
-hpa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.