GPL Issues Surrounding Commercial Device Drivers?

Demiurg asks: "My company has recently decided to support Linux for it's embedded networking products which means that I'm starting to write Linux device drivers for our hardware. The company was very concerned about GPL issues and consulted a lawyer - who advised us to go for a user-space driver, saying that this is the only safe way to avoid GPL issues. I tried to give them a few examples of companies distributing binary only drivers (NVIDIA and Rational) but was told that these companies do not distribute binary only drivers - they only allow you to download them from a web site (which is not an option for an embedded product). What does Slashdot have to say about the issue? Is writing a user-mode (and hence not very efficient) driver the only way for a company to protect it's intellectual property? Please refrain from giving answers like 'all code should be GPL' - although I personally may agree, such answers will not help me convince management to make the change." Are there any lawyers (or readers with the right legal knowledge) out there that can confirm or contradict this recommendation?

Comments

What exactly are you trying to keep secret?

[Brian the Bold]

You need to look at exactly what parts of your hardware a GPL'd driver source would reveal, and whether there is really any need to avoid a GPL'd driver for this reason.

Only the people who know what the hardware does and why the features in question need to be kept secret can make this decision.

not revealing intellectual property versus GPL

[John_Sauter]

I suggest you divide your code into two parts. Write a device driver which does not reveal any of your secrets but provides support for your application, which uses the device driver to interface to your device but need not be licensed under the GPL. Put all code that would reveal any important secrets into the application.

John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Not sued != legal

[amorsen]

The fact that NVIDIA and Rational have not been sued does not imply that they are legally in the clear. There are certainly several kernel developers who have said clearly that the "module exception" invented by Linus Torvalds does not extend to linking to their code. So far they have not sued anyone. Maybe they never will.

Re:lawyers

[flossie]

The major difference is that if you include a copyrighted image/paragraph/etc in your original work (whether by permission or via fair use) the copyright on the cited work does not infect the remaining 90% of your original work.

ditto for the GPL. If you copy with permission other than the GPL, no problem. If you copy under fair use, also no problem. The GPL only applies if permission and fair use do not apply.

The GPL gives rights; it does not take any away. Where copyright doesn't restrict you, nor does the GPL.

So maybe you ought to think about this issue a little more before you post this tripe again.

Maybe you should read the GPL again.