Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:22:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:22:52 -0500 Received: from hibernia.jakma.org ([212.17.32.129]:6276 "EHLO hibernia.jakma.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:22:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Jakma X-X-Sender: paul@fogarty.jakma.org To: Rik van Riel cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, , Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-NSA: iraq saddam hammas hisballah rabin ayatollah korea vietnam revolt mustard gas 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: 2152 Lines: 55 On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote: > Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL > applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a > "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work > needs to be GPL. and: > but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple > declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines? > what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the > standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a > derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license. It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL. The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work. So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia driver is technically in material breach of GPL. You seem to be basing your opinion on: "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel" How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces. However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence? > Rik regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: Programmers do it bit by bit. - 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/