On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
*One* author/copyright holder has expressed permission. Countless others have not, and some have even taken technical-level steps toward trying to prevent it (eg, the patch to make Linux refuse to load incompatibly licensed modules).
I see the crux of your argument here, though I'd argue that it's a last stand, given that you've retreated on everything else you've said.
I'd like to point out that nobody is disagreeing that the distribution of precompiled Linux kernel drivers is a technical violation of the GPL. What we're arguing is that the significant parties involved have stated that this violation is due to a limitation of the license - does not violate the "spirit" of the license.
We're talking _practically_ here. I can see that you're not. Your aforementioned "nVidia-killer" patch didn't get accepted into the kernel, right? Why is that?
BECAUSE LINUS TORVALDS CONTROLS KERNEL DEVELOPMENT AND REFUSES PATCHES WHICH DO DUMB STUFF LIKE THAT. HIS OPINION TRUMPS ALL OTHERS. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES HE "OWNS" THE KERNEL AND IF HE SAYS NVIDIA IS NOT INFRINGING, THEY ARE NOT. :)
Hehe, 'nuff said.
Also, non-enforcement does not count as "implied permission" in regard to copyrights, only trademarks (and then the trademark is lost entirely).
Well, Linus has publicly stated that what nVidia is doing is okay. That's better than "implied permission", it _is_ permission. See my above overuse of caps.
Jeffrey.