On 12/20/06, Pamela Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL is a copyright license. That means it isn't required to do what copyright law says. In fact, it does not. It adds freedoms that copyright law would take away. To compare it, then, with fair use, a component of copyright law, is useless. If the license says you can do it, you can, despite copyright law. Similarly, if it says you can't, you can't, no matter what copyright law says, if you wish to retain your GPL freedoms and don't wish to be sued.
Exactly. Nvidia can distribute binary-only drivers all day long while claiming it's fair use... so long as they don't care about being GPL-compliant. So long as they don't need / want the extra freedoms provided by the GPL. That's a fairly big question... does Nvidia make significant use of Linux (I assume they must - it's kind of hard to hack a Linux kernel driver otherwise, although technically possible). Can we document it? BTW... thanks for the clarification PJ. :) --tim _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
