There's a legitimate issue with closed source drivers and the Linux kernel. The issue is that the kernel isn't a library and thus isn't distributed under the LGPL, which allows proprietary software to link to it (and thus include function headers and such from the LGPLed software).
nVidia's driver uses kernel headers, which is technically a violation of the GPL. However, this is not an issue of abuse, but more of a unique situation, since the kernel is a unique item on a system. It's not an application and it's not a library, but has features of both. The LPGL is not an appropriate copyright for the kernel - the GPL is more appropriate. However the GPL isn't perfect either.
Stallman and Torvalds have both stated that while there is certainly an issue, it is not violating the spirit of the Free Software movement. I also believe Torvalds has blessed this particular kind of thing and said that he does not see it to be a problem.
So I put it to Luke thus (and I'm echoing Leo): If Stallman (the most hardheaded and fervent Free Software advocate on the planet) and Torvalds (the reason you're here) both say it's cool, how is it that you feel that your viewpoint is superior?
Jeffrey.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Adrian Griffis [email protected] wrote:
What if the nVidia driver only "#include"s some kernel header files. As long as those header files do not include inline code definitions (an artifact of C++, not C), wouldn't the effects of defined constants, declarations, and function prototypes fit well into the fair use exceptions?