--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday 03 April 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
Avoid nVidia unless you agree with all of these statements:
- Don't care that this combination is
illegal.
Never heard that one before.
I'll cite Greg on this one...
"I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff."
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
I went back and looked that link up, and lets quote that paragraph of Greg's in context:
"I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very simple."
The paragraph immediately following your quote was rather enlightening (emphasis mine):
"Now **no lawyer will ever come out in public and say this, as lawyer really aren't allowed to make public statements like this at all**. But **if you hire one**, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting, they will advise you of this issue."
I am not convinced by an argument that stipulates that the people who told Greg that "kernel modules are illegal" will NEVER VERIFY THIS AS TRUE unless you pay them lots of money to tell you the same thing, and even then they can't legally discuss in public what you've talked about in private. It sounds more like Greg was inventing new reasons to keep "non-free" out of the kernel. At least RMS was honest enough to only use independently verifiable reasons against including "non-free" in distributions.
In fact, Greg's "argument" sounds a lot like the Microsoft "counterargument" when you come to them saying that your new device isn't working and the manufacturer says its Microsoft's OS that is the problem: "the problem isn't in our source code, and to verify the truthfulness of our statement, you will have to pay a lot of money and sign a NDA." Not much different from "closed source Linux drivers are illegal, and to verify the truthfulness of this statement, you will have to pay a lot of money and agree to the legal equivalent of a NDA."
____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com