[olug] [OT] Video Card Recommendation

[Adam Lassek]

No it doesn't. The Linux-specific shim is GPL. It interacts with a generic
binary driver, which is not Linux-derivative. It's a grey area, but there is
no GPL code in their closed-source driver.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>