[openib-general] PathScale license

[Caitlin Bestler]

openib-general-bounces at openib.org wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 06:02:55PM -0800, Johann George wrote:
>> We have heard the issues that have been raised regarding the
>> PathScale license.  PathScale's intent is solely to protect its
>> hardware IP and not to limit use of the software in any way.
>> 
>> PathScale's use of this language is not original.  SGI has used, and
>> perhaps originated, the additional language.  It currently appears in
>> several files in the Linux kernel.  As an example, see
>> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.c
> 
> XFS has been switched to a normal short GPL boilerplate
> exactly because this wording is not okay.
> 

The best statement I could google explicitly states that
patented code *can* be submitted *if* it has a license.

The plain reading of pathscale's license grants an unencumbered
license *to the code*. It merely refrains from waving any
related hardware rights. 

As I read it, the code *may* be used with alternative hardware.
If the alternative hardware violates the patent, the driver code
is irrelevant. The code is not being restricted to work only
with the patented hardware, correct?