Hi Grant,
IANAL, but I don't think that is the reason. See below.
On 8/22/07, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/21/07, Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are nVidia's closed source driver components for Linux a GPL
> violation? If
> > so, why has nobody tried to enforce this over the substantial time that
> this
> > has been going on? Thus does the GPL actually guarantee the user any
> rights
> > that the LGPL does not?
>
> FWIW, nVidia and others are able to distribute a binary blob without
> violating the GPL because the binary blob is not compiled or linked
> against any of the kernel headers. The end-user runs a script which
> links the blob against the kernel headers to produce a loadable kernel
> module. Once linked; the end user is free to use the kernel modules
> however he whats, but he is not free to distribute it.
Applie tried to do this with their objective c libraries for the GCC and
were threatened by the FSF into releasing them under the GPL. IANAL, but I
think that the difference with nVidia amounts to:
1) nVidia's proprietary code is not derived from nor does it use any
interfaces from GPL'd code itself. A compatibly licensed bridge accompanies
the software. The proprietary code is therefore non-derivative.
2) nVidia does *not* distribute this as a part of a larger Linux kernel
collective work. THis is then reasonably seen as a "separate" work under
the GPL v2, section 2.
However, it seems to me an open question whether a Linux distributor could
be sued for bundling these on the same media by creating a larger "work as a
whole" incorporating the Linux kernel and all the drivers they distribute or
whether this is "mere aggregation."
This creates some interesting questions for us as a community. These are
mostly of interest in the compatibility section. However, given the Lexmark
v. Static Control Components case (2004), we might benefit from offering
"safe" interfaces and permissions so that if someone does something we don't
like, we don't run into the question of whether we are using copyrights to
prevent interoperability. This is one area I want to consult with an
attourney (maybe next week?). THe basic concern is that if there are no
interfaces which are *clearly* safe, we might lose substantial control over
the form of additional components.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
