Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Received: from hq.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.10]:51673 "EHLO hq.pm.waw.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:41:04 -0500 To: Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? References: From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: 31 Dec 2002 16:11:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2816 Lines: 60 Andre Hedrick writes: > Are you a customer of Nvidia? > If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD! Which country has such weird copyright laws? > If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which > is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc. I don't think we have LGPL code in the kernel, but of course I can be wrong here. Anyway, NVidia has binary driver being a kernel component and XFree86 driver. While XFree86 driver may or may not be subject to X11 license, the kernel part (an object file which is then linked to a kernel module glue code) does not seem to be derived from kernel code. > Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to > say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Still, LGPL has nothing to do with it. The kernel code is licensed under version 2 of GPL (or maybe later version, but there isn't any). Having or not having money has nothing to do with it either. > Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source > modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what > you think, feel, or care. Kernel behaviour is not related to legal issues. > If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or > loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old > dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware > which will run on Linux with any usability. Forget it. The kernel itselt can't force anyone to do anything. That is the license that matters. BTW: Of course, vendors are free to produce drivers for their hardware. Have you seen such a closed-source driver which was working correctly? I haven't. > So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the > license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a > file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is > defined as "GPL patch"? IANAL, but I'd assume a patch doesn't change the license for a product (a file etc), unless stated otherwise. > Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side > of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from > being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". A module has to be linked when it's loaded. But it, of course, doesn't matter - the GPL doesn't prevent you from linking GPL code to anything you want, unless you want to distribute such a beast. -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/