On Thursday 03 April 2008, feba thatl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 AM, 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."
That looks like it's talking about working them into the kernel and distributing it, not just using it in a system.
*You* might be "just using it in a system", and the GPL makes it clear that mere use is always legal. However, *nVidia* is doing exactly what you admit is illegal: working it into the kernel and distributing the code for that.
Much in the same way that I could make a change to my copy of the source, compile it to a binary and never release it; but if I release the binary, I have to give out the source too.
The GPL terms apply equally to source as they do to a binary.