Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:24:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:24:09 -0500 Received: from itg-gw.cr008.cwt.esat.net ([193.120.242.226]:38919 "EHLO dunlop.admin.ie.alphyra.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:24:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:32:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Jakma X-X-Sender: paulj@dunlop.admin.ie.alphyra.com To: Alan Cox cc: Paul Jakma , Rik van Riel , , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? In-Reply-To: <1041472621.22606.4.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> 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: 919 Lines: 29 On 2 Jan 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what > constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not > set by the GPL authors indeed, and apparently its not at all a black-and-white area. to that end, i'll point to the following thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05725.html and the paper it links to, "derived software defined" (no idea whether its accurate): http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf and as IANAL, i'll shut up now. regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st - 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/