--- 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
Sorry this one is long, but I think that there's a lot of confusion over what is "illegal linking" and what is "legal linking", that needs to be addressed right away.
I think I can one-up you on expert witnesses, since I can cite Richard Stallman as he doesn't find anything illegal about closed-source proprietary nVidia drivers:
GROKLAW The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time, by Richard Stallman Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:22 AM EDT
"So what did Sun actually do? It allowed more convenient redistribution of the binaries of its Java platform. With this change, GNU/Linux distros CAN INCLUDE the non-free Sun Java platform, just as some now include the non-free nVidia driver. But they do so only at the cost of being non-free."
If RMS thinks that closed-source binary nVidia drivers are legal, and in particular don't violate the GPL, then I really don't see how ANYONE ELSE can claim they're illegal. Note his only complaint is that they are non-free. If it was illegal to do non-free binary modules, then he would have said so as it would make for a stronger argument against non-free drivers.
But other folks have weighed in on this in support of nVidia drivers being "legal" even if they're "non-free". This gentleman has written quite a bit on the topic of closed-source kernel modules. Here's his point that if all instances of "linking" are considered to be "GPL-covered linking", then you cannot run Adobe PDF Reader in Linux. Nor can you run Adobe Flash, or any other closed-source application, because all of them "link to the GPL'd kernel" in the same way that nVidia closed-source proprietary kernel modules "link to the GPL'd kernel".
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/politics/kmodsGPL.htm
"There is also significant looseness in the term 'linking' and it would be helpful to differentiate between various varieties of linking and to provide clear definitions of such."
"Linking to independently written code is not considered building on GPL'd code. For example, every single binary (apart from the kernel itself) links to the kernel. Every single binary repeatedly calls the kernel to regulate communication with the hardware, etc. This type of linking of open or CLOSED SOURCE binaries to the GPL'd kernel is fine and no one (who has a clue) claims otherwise."
"Using Linux kernel-header-files is NOT considered stealing GPL'd code. These are the instruction files, telling a program how it should link to the kernel. It is vital that all programs (proprietary or free) talk, or link, to the kernel in this way."
"For example, when Adobe Acrobat Reader is compiled for Windows it uses Windows-header-files to establish the necessary linkage to the Windows kernel. This linkage to the Windows kernel does not imply that Adobe Acrobat Reader is violating Microsoft's copyright, or licenses, any more than Adobe Acrobat Reader violates the GPL when it compiles against Linux-kernel-header-files in order to communicate with the Linux kernel."
"The Linux kernel interface is absolutely necessary for programs to talk, or link, to the kernel. A program that cannot link to the kernel is clearly totally worthless."
nVidia drivers link only to the kernel in ways which are required of any application running in Linux. nVidia does not link its drivers to GPL'd application modules or libraries.
If nVidia drivers are "violating the GPL", then any non-GPLed software running in Linux is also "violating the GPL". If linking a non-GPLed application to the kernel IN ANY WAY is illegal, then non-native code is illegal because all of it will have to "link to the kernel."
Finally, it is of interest to note that the kernel developers themselves envisage a combination of proprietary and GPL kernel modules, as you can see when you read the documentation section of the header file module.h, found at /usr/src/linux/include/linux/module.h.
The fact is that closed-source binary kernel modules, such as the nVidia drivers, aren't illegal, and saying that they are is doing Microsoft's FUD for them. For "free", no less.
____________________________________________________________________________________ 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