On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:08 -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:15 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:33 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:12 -0400, M P Smoak wrote:
> > > > > So a company that wanted to have a proprietary connection to linux
> > > > > could write an open source blob and a closed connection to the blob
> > > > > for their closed hardware/software? ie linux remains useable for
> > > > > companies.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not if the closed part was specifically developed to run on Linux. The
> > > > key is whether it's a "derived work" as far as copyright law is
> > > > concerned or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can develop a closed package to specifically run on Linux. It
> > > is not in violation of the GPL. This is the old Micr$oft "GPL is a
> > > cancer" FUD. What you can't do is use GPL code in a closed application.
> > >
> >
> > I am talking about KERNEL DRIVERS. Please re-read the thread. Of
> > course you can develop a closed USERSPACE package.
> >
> > The kernel is GPL. Drivers are part of the kernel. Therefore you
> > cannot develop a closed source kernel driver.
> >
>
> What would you call the NVIDIA driver?
>
>
Nvidia driver is a special case - it is not a derived work of the kernel
because they use the same binary blob the Windows driver uses.
I covered this earlier in the thread.
Lee
Received on Sun Jun 11 04:15:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 11 2006 - 04:15:03 EEST