[olug] [OT] Video Card Recommendation

[Luke-Jr]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 08:44:17 pm Dave Rowe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 November 2009 07:07:51 pm Dave Rowe wrote:
> > > Did NVidia release their own closed source kernel?
> >
> > Their own closed source kernel patch, yes.
> 
> Does their closed source kernel _patch_ include GPL'd code?

Yes.

> > > How is their module a 'fork of Linux'?
> >
> > "Modules" are just a Linux word for a binary patch. Linux is not a micro-
> > kernel, nor does it make any linking exceptions other than for userland.
> 
> Binary patch or not, unless the driver itself contains GPL'd code, I can't
> see how this is a violation?

nVidia has presumably copied Linux at least once in order to write the driver. 
To do that, they had to agree to the terms of the GPL. Including that they 
cannot distribute derived works that link to incompatibly licensed software.

> > > Likewise, do you have proof that they've violated the terms of  the
> > > GPL?
> >
> > They are still violating the terms of the GPL by distributing a derived
> > work of Linux (the source code wrapper) that links with a non-compliant
> > binary blob.
> 
> How do you figure the driver installation tool is a derived work of Linux?
> Does the tool contain GPL'd code itself?  If not, they're not distributing
>  a derived work.

I'm not referring to a tool.

> > Microsoft had a simple downloader that violated the GPL and they
> >
> > >  responded rather quickly that they'd open-source the tool, yet you're
> > >  going to tell me that NVidia with as much exposure as they have, they
> > >  haven't gotten 'caught'?  Not likely.
> >
> > They've been 'caught' plenty, just not sued.
> 
> It's not like the driver is being included in a distributed kernel.  They
> provide a driver, I install it.  I have every right to install what I want.

You do, yes. But they don't have the right to distribute it.