From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Thu Jan 14 14:57:14 1999
Received: from entry.jcu.cz (IDENT:perex@entry.jcu.cz [160.217.1.111])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA10453;
	Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:56:38 +0100
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:56:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
To: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
cc: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz, rutger@spin.m38c.nl
Subject: Re: as if to prove my point ...
In-Reply-To: <19990114001115.A680@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990114145330.19753F-100000@entry.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 10:41:12PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 rutger@spin.m38c.nl wrote:
> > 
> > > [snip]
> > > > 
> > > > Jacob Crawley contacted me directly and we are looking for way howto
> > > > support ALSA driver development for SB Live which should be acceptable
> > > > by both sides. Looks that Creative can release some code under free
> > > > license (it willn't be probably GNU GPL, but something like Netscape
> > > > agreement for Mozilla). Main problem should be that Creative is thinking
> > > > about release only some library for SB Live - this should cause unwanted
> > > > trouble with different kernel versions :-((
> > > > 
> > > > 							Jaroslav
> > > 
> > > On news://news.3dfx.com/glide.linux something similar was going on: a
> > > company wanted to create driver but didn't want to release source
> > > code, and then the next thing was suggested which seems as a workable
> > > solution:
> > 
> > Yes, this is really useable, I'm thinking about this solution (but in
> > last sort)..
> 
> Note that you are not allowed to distribute a binary which sources are
> partly GPL and contains such an object file. This would be a clear violation
> of the GPL conditions, just for example requirement 3 (availability of
> source code).
> 
> I don't see this as viable option for Linux development, but maybe I
> misunderstood the original intentions.

OK. I'll will be glad if Creative distribute code under GNU GPL or
documentation which will allow write GPL code, but seems that this
way isn't acceptable by Creative. 

I think that some driver is better than none driver. We can
distribute some binary code and code for some sort of soundcard in
separate packages which willn't follow GPL. But I don't preffer this way
which makes coding more hard, of course.

							Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
Academic Computer Centre, University of South Bohemia
Branisovska 31, C. Budejovice, CZ-370 05 Czech Republic


