Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:12:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:12:37 -0500 Received: from warden-p.diginsite.com ([208.29.163.248]:61374 "HELO warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:12:36 -0500 From: David Lang To: Paul Jakma Cc: Rik van Riel , Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:08:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 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: 3003 Lines: 77 well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel?????? luckly that's not how things actually work. David Lang On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote: > Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) > From: Paul Jakma > To: Rik van Riel > Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source > drivers? > > 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/ > - 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/