On 2007-05-07 02:09, Benji Weber wrote: > On 5/6/07, Darryl Gregorash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > This is nothing todo with the DMCA. Have a look at the source of the >> > nvidia driver shim (which is available, but not GPLed) you wil see it >> > links to GPLed kernel components. Making it illegal to distribute >> > under normal copyright law unless it is also GPLed. I suggest you read >> > the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html . >> >> Get real, Benji. With this kind of logic, it would be a violation of the >> GPL whenever any proprietary software issued an "open file" request to >> the GPLed system. > > No the shim links to gpled kernel at build time. And when I compile anything that opens a file, it has to link to the GPLed system library at build time too. That does not preclude me from compiling proprietary software that issues open file requests, as the FSF has clearly stated, so long as I do not statically link to the library.
Do you mean that kernel source winds up compiled into the driver(s) after compilation/linkage is complete? If that is the case, then you are probably correct; but if the nVidia source merely refers to the kernel source for things like variables or pointers, settings, etc, this is part of the normal operation of a device driver, and would seem to be allowed by the exclusion Linus Torvalds inserted right above the GPL licence. > > <snip> > "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or > distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are > prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. " So what? You have yet to demonstrate that the nVidia drivers are a derivative work of the kernel. As for all those legal opinions, who wrote them? Bruce Perens and company? We all know where they stand; if they could get away with it, they would probably try to claim the GPL applies to anything written by anyone who has ever uttered the words "open source". And as for distribution vs. possession and use, if it is unlawful for someone to give me something, it is equally unlawful for me to receive it and to use it. Otherwise, the RIAA and friends would have no legal leg to stand on when they go after all the MP3 download kiddies, on this side of The Pond or on that, for possession of "pirated" music. Under current Canadian copyright law, that may be so, but hardly anywhere else on the planet (though I hasten to add that case has not yet gone to appeal, and the original trial judge might well find himself overturned on appeal). -- Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- HG Wells -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
