My company manufactured a MIPI CSI2 camera and I have developed a camera driver for that camera. The driver is based on the NXP camera driver.

I have changed all the function names and variable names to my camera name in the driver etc. Now can I say my driver is licensed under GPL and it's open source?

I have mentioned the following statements in my driver:

 /* Copyright (C) 2017 XYZ Private limited, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  /* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
   * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
   * (at your option) any later version.

   * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   * GNU General Public License for more details. 

1 Answer 1


IANAL/IANYL. That said, and to answer the question you asked, you have published your driver under the GNU GPL v2+ and clearly indicated this in the headers, so you may certainly say it is licensed under GPL, and you can therefore definitely claim (at least to me) that it is open-sourced.

To answer the question you haven't asked, this driver is pretty clearly a derivative work of the driver you link to. The normal thinking about replicating software without creating derivative works is the clean room reimplementation, which crucially requires two or more people, one of whom looks at the existing software and writes a functional specification based thereon, and the other of whom writes code that implements that functional spec. You didn't do that: you just changed variable and function names, which is unlikely to be enough to stop your driver being a derivative work. You have also said above that your code is based on the earlier driver.

That means that it's good that you chose to publish your driver under GPL v2+, because you are obliged to do so. It also means that when you (or your employer) distribute the driver, you/they must follow the GPL's obligations, including (but not limited to) those with respect to source access. It also means that you should not have removed Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s copyright notice, but instead added your own, above theirs.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.