Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:35:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:35:54 -0500 Received: from slkcdslgw12PoolC244.slkc.uswest.net ([65.100.254.244]:28481 "EHLO shortcircuit.dyndns.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:35:53 -0500 Message-ID: <3E131AE5.1090802@shortcircuit.dyndns.org> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:44:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL and Nvidia References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dan Egli X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.65 (Johnstown) X-Primary-Address: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2732 Lines: 72 Andre Hedrick wrote: >On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote: > > > >>lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no >>legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is >>irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as >> >> > >You now may have committed a software crime. >You have taken software you may not be licensed or authorized to have. > > > >>they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant >>help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL >> >> > >Then go beg them for a job, but then again if you knew jack about their >product, you would be squelched by now. > > > >>ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL >>modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl >>code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing >>is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI >>could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source >>drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt >>even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to >>say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch >>is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could >>only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia >>included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc, >>perhaps its time I seeked legal advice. >> >> > >Yes it is because if I owned Nvidia, I would snatch you into a court of >law so fast for piracy you boots would still be warm while empty. > >Your petty rants only add more death nails to Linux in going forward in >the commerial and business model. > >Regards, > >Andre Hedrick >LAD Storage Consulting Group > >- >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/ > > A voice of reason! Many users like nVidia's cards. I certainly love them. Are the absolute best cards? No. Do they have every legal right to publish drivers the way they do? Yes. Now I agree with what was said earlier. This subject is being fought to death, and then some. Let's let it die. It is quite appearant that not everyone is going to agree on this. - 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/