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:

1. 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

...

3. Don't care that your OS is not supported by Linux/DRI/X.org

developers.

In all fairness, I don't assume support from anyone if I don't pay for it.

Makes sense, but I mean that you're not at all likely to actually get anyone who knows the code to help you. Eg, bugzilla WONTFIX instead of some other resolution.

Well, ATI has always sucked for me, even on Windows. Nvidia always worked. I hate the situation, but that's how it is. Intel is a good place to be in terms of video cards.

I don't use Windows. ATi has always worked for me, but I do my research before buying.

That said, as soon as AMD/ATI comes fully with their promise of open drivers, I'm jumping ship right away.

AMD has already released specs and is funding Novell (IIRC) to write the new drivers.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, feba thatl [email protected] wrote:

ATI might work for you; when I tried to use it I got nothing but problems, both on Windows and Linux. The same goes for everyone else I've ever talked to about graphics cards on linux. Nvidia, however, worked out of the box. I'm not going to argue that it's better to be open source when possible; obviously that's the main reason most of us are here; but neither of those companies are very good options yet.

Recent personal experience (Dec/Jan): ATI not so fun, nVidia just worked. I had purchased an ATI HD2400 256MB AGP card for myself, and it just wouldn't work in Linux with the ATI Catalyst drivers. It also had a very hard time getting up in Windows (I went so far as to install a 30-day trial of Vista, just to see if it was the hardware failing after trying for so long in Linux). I returned the card to MicroCenter and purchased a 7600GS 256MB AGP card, which I dropped in and Ubuntu found the binary drivers for and just started working. Vista picked it up too, but Vista was only a memory soon after... I didn't have the spendy for anything faster from nVidia, but it was going in my P4 AGP machine, so anything faster would be pretty much a waste.

It's nice that ATI is going Open, but from what I read about my problem it was likely to be an issue with the AGP controller chip on the card to translate the PCIe native chip to my old system.

Jon.

On Thu, April 3, 2008 09:13, Leo Mauler wrote:

People keep going on about "3D acceleration" in ATi cards, but I've never gotten an ATi card to run in Linux on anything other than the VESA driver...

I have an old ATI card (Radeon RV100 QY [Radeon 7000/VE]), and it works fine for 2D graphics, using the xorg ATI driver (radeon). The system boggs down in the latest Crystalspace games I have, but that's a system power issue. (I don't know if Crystalspace counts as 3D).

In my experience, ATI cards work great for everyday 2D stuff, desktop, web, photo, even video. Where they fall flat is on the 3D level, where nobody has anything good to say. 3D is gaming and the new 3D desktop effects fad - not something essential to most people's daily PC use.

As far as "acceleration" goes, that's just a term for the card's GPU taking over some of the processing that would otherwise be done by the CPU. Most cards do some level of "acceleration" in both 2D and 3D mode, and it's more a question of the end results - rendering speed and quality.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, feba thatl [email protected] wrote:

...

ATI might work for you; when I tried to use it I got nothing but problems, both on Windows and Linux. The same goes for everyone else I've ever talked to about graphics cards on linux. Nvidia, however, worked out of the box. I'm not going to argue that it's better to be open source when possible; obviously that's the main reason most of us are here; but neither of those companies are very good options yet.

Recent personal experience (Dec/Jan): ATI not so fun, nVidia just worked. I had purchased an ATI HD2400 256MB AGP card for myself,

That card is too new; it's in the "drivers currently in development" category. Up to the X850 are an entirely different story.

It's nice that ATI is going Open, but from what I read about my problem it was likely to be an issue with the AGP controller chip on the card to translate the PCIe native chip to my old system.

What does PCIe have to do with an AGP system?

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Jon Pruente [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

What does PCIe have to do with an AGP system?

As I understood it, the HD chips are PCIe native and need to have a bus translation chip (that I don't recall the model/chip name of) to run on AGP systems, and that chip was the main source of problems, both on Windows and Linux, but much more so on Linux.

Jon.

I re-discovered that it is the ATI RIALTO chip that translates PCIe native chips to the AGP bus, and it dates back to the X8xx series, at least in some articles.

Jon.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

nVidia is only *technically* breaking the GPL with their pre-built kernel modules that there installer can download from their servers. This is provided as a convenience to the users, and it isn't worth it for lawyers to push the issue due to what I'm about to describe.

If you're like me, you're never running a distro's stock kernel on a gaming rig (where you need 3d accel). In this case, you can't use a pre-built kernel module. If you download the nVidia driver package, it requires all of the GPLed files, including kernel header files and such, to already be installed (they aren't *distributed* with the installer). Then, you as the user are building a non-GPL kernel module for your own use, as is permitted by the GPL.

Since the "violation" is for user convenience, it is mostly a moot point to argue about it. The only "correction" that nVidia would make if push came to shove is that they would drop this user convenience. This would piss a lot of people off, but they wouldn't be looking at nVidia, they'd be after the lawyer to stirred up the trouble.

nVidia has been very nice to the Open Source community. Someone doesn't have to subscribe to our development model and license schemes to be our friend. While it is true that it would be nice to have nVidia on the Open Source band wagon, there is no reason to go on rants about how "bad" they are.

~Bradley

Luke -Jr wrote: | 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: |>> > > 1. 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 |> 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. | _______________________________________________ | Kclug mailing list | [email protected] | http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug | |

- -- ~Bradley Hook Education Systems Administrator Kansas State School for the Blind 1100 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66102 Voice: (913) 281-3308 ext. 363 Mobile: (913) 645-9958 Facsimile: (913) 281-3104 http://www.kssb.net

****************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential unless explicitly indicated otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ******************************************************************************************

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

Again, the GPL applies to source releases just as much as binary releases. Whether they distribute binary or source, they still need to abide by the law.

You sir confuse "law" with "copyright". Any infringement nVidia does is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Your choice of words is probably unintentional, though I suggest you be more precise as the ones you choose are much more sensational.

As far as your point goes, I do not disagree with you. There are valid arguments on both sides, though. However, I would argue that the community has much bigger fish to fry and that perhaps we ought to deal with more important issues first.

A proprietary driver is useless. It would be better to have nothing for nVidia than their blobs. At least then there would be enough interest in the community to either put them out of business or create reverse engineered support.

To clarify, it is useless _to you_. You seem to have a romanticized view of the Free Software community - that we somehow all live by the mantra "give me liberty or give me death". Perhaps you're just new to the movement, as if you check your history you'd find that in the past these kinds of compromises were made all the time. Do you think that GCC was developed on a Free Unix? Do you think that Linux was originally developed on a Free Unix? There are many other examples.

I agree that the ultimate goal should be a fully functional and open nVidia driver. I disagree with you that we ought to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Jeffrey~

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

Copyright exists only as being a law.

You like to wordsmith your positions posthumously so as to appear right.

I understand that a law is the foundation of copyright in this country (hence "copyright law"). But then again, it is for almost anything. I was commenting that your choice of words was imprecise and only served to sensationalize your arguments.

This is a technical forum, precision is very important.

Whether civil or criminal is irrelevant: it is still in violation of the law.

No sir, that is very incorrect. Criminal infringement requires the government to act on behalf of an injured populace. In civil matters the injured parties must seek justice on their own. This is a very important distinction (see my earlier point about precision).

There are no injured parties in this circumstance (as the principal author has said it's fine), and thus this distinction is critical. You may feel that it is "illegal" - which in itself is a rather sensational term to choose, I would choose "infringes" - but you sir are not an injured party as you do not hold the Linux copyright. Furthermore, I believe that it is obvious that you are not a lawyer and are in general ignorant of the legal system and thus you are, to use a rather vulgar phrase, "talking out of your ass".

Both of your examples are migrating from non-free to free. This situation is the exact opposite: free toward non-free.

No sir. If I recall correctly, before the nVidia driver nVidia cards did not fully work under Linux. I believe it had basic VESA support, but nothing more. You might argue that that is "working", I'd disagree as people do not buy nVidia cards to use 1990s standards. This is clearly a situation where one might expect an eventual Free driver to resolve the current necessity of using a non-Free driver.

However, now that I've answered your rebuttal could you please address my larger point that you danced around?

Jeffrey.

P.S. Please excuse my double-response Luke, I keep forgetting that this mailing list doesn't have Reply-To: set.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Bradley Hook wrote:

As you point out, the legality of copyright actions is based on permission of the author, and since the author has given implied permission, the act becomes legal.

*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).

Also, non-enforcement does not count as "implied permission" in regard to copyrights, only trademarks (and then the trademark is lost entirely).

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

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.

And if you were paying attention, LINUS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION LIKE THIS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HOLD COPYRIGHT OVER ALL THE CODE INVOLVED.

Whether it is practical to enforce the law or not is an unrelated matter to the question of whether it is legal or not.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Jeffrey Watts [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

And if you were paying attention, LINUS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION LIKE THIS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HOLD COPYRIGHT OVER ALL THE CODE INVOLVED.

Sure he does. You seem to believe that underpants gnomes hand out "authority" over things. You acknowledge that the copyright situation is a bit murky. I'm pointing out that the person with the original copyright (and who is the namesake, leader, and spiritual guide) is the "authority". Are you saying he's not? Find me a person that doesn't believe Linus has "authority" over the Linux kernel and I'll show you a fool.

Actually, Luke is correct. Moral authority has no standing in copyright law. Linus' standing as a leader in the community is all well and good, but his celebrity status does not override the standing of all the other copyright holders.

That said, the knife cuts both ways. Linus cannot grant an arbitrary, legally binding exception, because he is one of many copyright holders on the kernel. On the other hand, any other arbitrary group of copyright holders cannot take nVidia, or any other vendor, to court if one of the effected copyright holders refuses to agree to the suit.

There is no doubt that Linus does hold moral authority, and that his pronouncements (on nVidia or anything else) hold a lot of sway with developers and users. However, the fact remains that he does not, as far as I am aware, have the ability to speak legally for the entire universe of kernel copyright holders, or even the smaller set that owns the code nVidia happens to touch. So his words, however, comforting to nVidia, do not constitute a liability shield.

Matthew Copple

*sigh*

http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

Lawyers! Giving legal advice without money! Looks like they specialize in this stuff! Sweet!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Leo Mauler wrote: | "Derivative works are not going to encompass plug-ins | and DEVICE DRIVERS that are designed to be linked from | other off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If Linux | is designed to accept separately-designed plug-in | programs, you don’t create a derivative work by merely | running such a program under Linux, even if you have | to look at the Linux source code to learn how to do | so."

Actually, you DO create a derivative work by "running" programs/modules of this nature under Linux. The loaded process includes a substantial portion of the Linux kernel (because it IS the Linux kernel), and therefore you are running a derivative work. However, that isn't the issue with GPL code, because once the code legally makes it to your machine you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT so long as you don't redistribute it outside of the GPL allowances.

The derivative work isn't created until you load the module into the kernel. Before that, it is a work which DEPENDS ON but is not DERIVED FROM the kernel. In other words, it is legal to distribute a proprietary module which DEPENDS ON the kernel, so long as it isn't distributed with the kernel or any substantial portion of it. If you get your kernel source from kernel.org, and your nVidia package from nvidia.com (which doesn't include any kernel code), then you can legally compile and run the resulting module without violating the GPL. If you redistribute the resulting module, you ARE violating the GPL from a technical standpoint, but since the module can be legally built without violating the GPL, it is a moot point because it is only for convenience.

- -- ~Bradley Hook Education Systems Administrator Kansas State School for the Blind 1100 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66102 Voice: (913) 281-3308 ext. 363 Mobile: (913) 645-9958 Facsimile: (913) 281-3104 http://www.kssb.net

****************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential unless explicitly indicated otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ******************************************************************************************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Adrian Griffis wrote: | That simply doesn't follow. It doesn't matter how often that argument is | repeated. Linking doesn't make a derivative work. The two are linked; | One is dependent on the other; But, neither is derived from the other. | That's just not what the word "derived" means.

Regardless of your interpretation, it is irrelevant because the GPL allows it either way, and that was my point - the GPL allows it. - -- ~Bradley Hook Education Systems Administrator Kansas State School for the Blind 1100 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66102 Voice: (913) 281-3308 ext. 363 Mobile: (913) 645-9958 Facsimile: (913) 281-3104 http://www.kssb.net

****************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential unless explicitly indicated otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ******************************************************************************************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Jeffrey Watts wrote: | On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote: |> Again, the GPL applies to source releases just as much as binary releases. |> Whether they distribute binary or source, they still need to abide by the law. | | You sir confuse "law" with "copyright". Any infringement nVidia does | is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Your choice of words is | probably unintentional, though I suggest you be more precise as the | ones you choose are much more sensational.

Copyright is controlled by codified law in the U.S. (Title 17 of the United States Code). Both civil and criminal matters are covered by law, the difference is in how they are processed and what the penalties may be.

| As far as your point goes, I do not disagree with you. There are | valid arguments on both sides, though. However, I would argue that | the community has much bigger fish to fry and that perhaps we ought to | deal with more important issues first. | |> A proprietary driver is useless. |> It would be better to have nothing for nVidia than their blobs. |> At least then there would be enough interest in the community to either put |> them out of business or create reverse engineered support. | | To clarify, it is useless _to you_. You seem to have a romanticized | view of the Free Software community - that we somehow all live by the | mantra "give me liberty or give me death".

What about the "liberty" of nVidia to not choose an Open Source model? (Directed at Luke-Jr, not Jeffrey).

| Perhaps you're just new to | the movement, as if you check your history you'd find that in the past | these kinds of compromises were made all the time. Do you think that | GCC was developed on a Free Unix? Do you think that Linux was | originally developed on a Free Unix? There are many other examples. | | I agree that the ultimate goal should be a fully functional and open | nVidia driver. I disagree with you that we ought to cut off our nose | to spite our face. | | Jeffrey~ |

- -- ~Bradley Hook Education Systems Administrator Kansas State School for the Blind 1100 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66102 Voice: (913) 281-3308 ext. 363 Mobile: (913) 645-9958 Facsimile: (913) 281-3104 http://www.kssb.net

****************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential unless explicitly indicated otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ******************************************************************************************

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 03:31:15PM -0500, Luke -Jr wrote:

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Bradley Hook wrote:

...

What about the "liberty" of nVidia to not choose an Open Source model?

I would equate that to your "liberty" to yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is none.

"I attempted to warn the crowd about the danger posed by the encroaching fire, but then noticed we were in a theatre, and so said nothing."

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Bradley Hook [email protected] wrote:

Copyright is controlled by codified law in the U.S. (Title 17 of the United States Code). Both civil and criminal matters are covered by law, the difference is in how they are processed and what the penalties may be.

I'm sorry, on the surface my reply seems contradictory. My point wasn't that the use of the term "law" itself was inappropriate, it was that it was being used imprecisely.

He stated that "they still need to abide by the law", which implies a criminal situation, as the logical implication was that we all have an obligation (by extension) to force them to comply. If we were talking about insider trading or the use of torture by our intelligence services, that would be an appropriate thing to say.

However, my assertion is that he should have stated "they still need to abide by the copyright", which is more precise and doesn't lead to ambiguity.

I hope that I was a bit more clear this time.

Jeffrey.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Adrian Griffis wrote:

nVidia is not distributing any GPL'd code. The are simply distributing their own proprietary driver. They aren't even working the driver into my kernel; The are simply telling me how to work their driver into my kernel. Exactly how are they violating the GPL?

Here's a hint: Linux is not a microkernel. It doesn't have "drivers" in the sense that Mach or Windows do. The only way to add such hardware support is to use internal Linux code to make a patch/module for it.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Adrian Griffis wrote:

fair use exceptions?

That's probably the only argument that I can see potentially being a defense. Obviously, the GPL cannot prohibit something permitted by copyright law itself.

Seeing as the "driver" is merely the same as a patch to Linux, however, this would be a legal loophole that could easily be abused.

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?

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

Torvalds has nothing to do with why I'm here. If Linux didn't exist, we'd be using either HURD or a BSD kernel.

You gave me a chuckle, especially the reference to HURD. I do not mean to slight the contributions of the Berkeley crowd or of GNU, but Linux was the catalyst for the mainstream use of Free software and the current Unix renaissance. It's possible that it could have happened in another way without the efforts of Linus, but then again, GNU struggled for years unsuccessfully to make a kernel. Writing a kernel from scratch is far from a trivial act.

Furthermore, BSD does not share your philosophy, and thus it's absurd for you to suggest that you'd be having an argument about a GPLed kernel if we were all using BSD.

Stallman doesn't think everything should be free, and admits there is a legal problem, so what's your argument again?

No sir, WHAT IS YOURS?

All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the license itself. Where is the injury? Where is the "illegal" behavior that you're talking about? They decline to seek civil recompense as they do not feel there is an injury. They publicly state that nVidia's efforts are okay and that they will not seek legal recompense.

My assertion is that your argument is baseless and that you are in the wrong. I have backed up my statements with facts, could you please do likewise?

Jeffrey.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

HURD is taking long because of its goals to surpass most existing kernels, and having had numerous rewrites. Both are likely a result of having a working kernel in Linux, and if Linux had not existed and BSD's kernel not forked, I think it very likely the complexity would be put off and a simplistic HURD completed a long time ago. At this point, this line of discussion has become purely "what if" and therefore pointless, so I doubt it's worth continuing.

LOL you made me laugh again. You do realize that they said the EXACT same thing fifteen years ago? HURD was overambitious, impractical, and had a bad development model. Nowadays it is simply an academic exercise.

But you are correct sir, let's return to the task at hand.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers. The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

I stated "significant parties" for a reason. There are thousands of contributors to the Linux kernel. Given that Stallman wrote the GPL and that Linus is the principal copyright holder I think that their statements are far, far, far more important than what "Greg" says. No offense to him or his efforts.

Copyright holders have the ability to grant permission to use their IP in ways different from their copyright. You could argue that Greg could try and sue nVidia for its infringement, but don't you think that it is an absurd effort and unlikely to succeed given that Torvalds wouldn't be party to it? I'm certainly no IP lawyer, but I'd think that a court would have a hard time determining injury without a claim of one by Mr Torvalds.

Jeffrey.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

Torvalds is not the only copyright holder, and could do nothing to grant nVidia permission beyond the GPL 2 at this point. I see no reason his testimony would be needed in court. Did he appear for the D-link lawsuit in which the GPL was upheld? From reading the proceedings, it seems to me to have been specifically copyright on the Linux kernel that was addressed.

I'm not a lawyer, I just watch a lot of Law & Order. Bear that in mind.

I'd imagine that the first person that nVidia would call to their defense in a civil trial would be Linus Torvalds, followed immediately by Richard Stallman. I'd imagine that a sane judge would weigh their opinions far above anyone else you could mention in regards to this issue.

D-link was a TOTALLY separate issue. It was a flagrant violation, and there were no supporters among the Linux copyright holders for what they did (or if there were, they were nutjobs and can safely be ignored). There was no controversy about whether or not the copyright holders felt that there was infringement. In fact, the suit was brought up on behalf of them (as it must be, given that it's a civil matter).

Please use more relevant examples.

Jeffrey.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

...

All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the license itself.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers. The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

There's a legal term which you should become aware of: "estoppel". In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

• The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
• The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
• ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.

In linux/COPYING we read that Linus has created an expectation that his copyright doesn't make binary drivers illegal simply through making system calls:

linux/COPYING says: "This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."

Again, nVidia's blobs are neither user programs nor merely use system calls. This exception is not applicable to them.

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

...

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

...

All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the license itself.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers. The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

There's a legal term which you should become aware of: "estoppel". In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

• The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
• The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
• ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.

In linux/COPYING we read that Linus has created an expectation that his copyright doesn't make binary drivers illegal simply through making system calls:

linux/COPYING says: "This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."

Again, nVidia's blobs are neither user programs nor merely use system calls.

Actually that isn't true. nVidia's driver uses a GPL'd "shim" or "wrapper", which means that the GPL'd wrapper makes all the system calls, and the nVidia driver makes calls only to the GPL'd wrapper.

I highly recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_call and learn that a system call is not merely "calling a function in the kernel". nVidia's driver does not (AFAIK) use system calls, and certainly does not ONLY use system calls.

Also, if you want to assert that the source code wrapper included is GPL, nVidia is clearly in violation for not including the license text with it, nor even a notice that it falls under the GPL. The only reference to the GPL relating to nVidia's driver is a comment in the Changelog stating that they "Removed all GPL'd code from nv.c.".

And if the wrapper were to be GPL'd, as is legally necessary from the fact that it is derived from Linux, it would be illegal to link it to nVidia's "kernel independent component", which is not GPL-compatible.

Since Linus, and your favorite kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, have already signed off on giving ndiswrapper back its GPL status, it would seem that the "GPL wrapper for non-GPL code" option is alive and well and ACKNOWLEDGED BY GREG KROAH-HARTMAN.

Again, NDISwrapper is legal because it is GPL. The NDIS drivers are legal because they are derived from the NDIS spec, and not NDISwrapper. There is no comparison here.

Greg saw the change and acknowledged the change. Greg has thus given nVidia and any distribution which uses nVidia drivers (which use ndiswrapper-like wrappers to allow non-GPL'd code to work as legal Linux kernel modules) all the "estoppel" they'll ever need in court.

No, nVidia's wrapper is nothing like NDIS. It does not implement a generic API. Anything using nVidia's wrapper is inherently derived from the wrapper, since there is no other possible option they could conceivably be derived from.

...

This exception is not applicable to them.

This is also immaterial because the GPL merely refers to "derived works", and Linus has already delivered an opinion that nVidia's binary-only drivers aren't "derived works":

Linus had nothing to do with writing nVidia's driver, so how would he know? Besides, the infringing part is their source wrapper, not the binary blob.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Arthur Pemberton [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

...

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

...

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote: > All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that > wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue > isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the > license itself.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers. The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

There's a legal term which you should become aware of: "estoppel". In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

• The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
• The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
• ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.

In linux/COPYING we read that Linus has created an expectation that his copyright doesn't make binary drivers illegal simply through making system calls:

linux/COPYING says: "This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."

Again, nVidia's blobs are neither user programs nor merely use system calls.

Actually that isn't true. nVidia's driver uses a GPL'd "shim" or "wrapper", which means that the GPL'd wrapper makes all the system calls, and the nVidia driver makes calls only to the GPL'd wrapper.

I highly recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_call and learn that a system call is not merely "calling a function in the kernel". nVidia's driver does not (AFAIK) use system calls, and certainly does not ONLY use system calls.

Also, if you want to assert that the source code wrapper included is GPL, nVidia is clearly in violation for not including the license text with it, nor even a notice that it falls under the GPL. The only reference to the GPL relating to nVidia's driver is a comment in the Changelog stating that they "Removed all GPL'd code from nv.c.".

And if the wrapper were to be GPL'd, as is legally necessary from the fact that it is derived from Linux, it would be illegal to link it to nVidia's "kernel independent component", which is not GPL-compatible.

...

Since Linus, and your favorite kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, have already signed off on giving ndiswrapper back its GPL status, it would seem that the "GPL wrapper for non-GPL code" option is alive and well and ACKNOWLEDGED BY GREG KROAH-HARTMAN.

Again, NDISwrapper is legal because it is GPL. The NDIS drivers are legal because they are derived from the NDIS spec, and not NDISwrapper. There is no comparison here.

...

Greg saw the change and acknowledged the change. Greg has thus given nVidia and any distribution which uses nVidia drivers (which use ndiswrapper-like wrappers to allow non-GPL'd code to work as legal Linux kernel modules) all the "estoppel" they'll ever need in court.

No, nVidia's wrapper is nothing like NDIS. It does not implement a generic API. Anything using nVidia's wrapper is inherently derived from the wrapper, since there is no other possible option they could conceivably be derived from.

...

...

This exception is not applicable to them.

This is also immaterial because the GPL merely refers to "derived works", and Linus has already delivered an opinion that nVidia's binary-only drivers aren't "derived works":

Linus had nothing to do with writing nVidia's driver, so how would he know? Besides, the infringing part is their source wrapper, not the binary blob.

I'll say this more clearly. I'm all for open source, and against binary blobs, but I think the arguement of legality to be totally irrelevant. The other points you originally made were much more poignant.

-- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) _______________________________________________

Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

I have to agree with this. You have to consider that most people don't really care about copyright law that much, I mean, look at how many people download CDs and movies and such. I'd be surprised if a few of the people in this conversation aren't here because someone gave them an alternative to pirating Windows. Your other points would be far more damaging to people's opinion of nVidia, which is the only logical reason I see for you to continue this.

As to the legality of using binary drivers (although I must state that it still seems like that Greg's words were only intended for BINARY DRIVERS DISTRIBUTED WITH THE KERNEL), what is illegal and what is not is in the opinion of the courts-- and quite honestly, it seems ludicrous to believe that any court would find against nVidia; especially given the opinions of Stallman, Torvalds, and I'd imagine a large majority of the kernel devs, not to mention many other experts, as well as users. In addition, I don't see a situation where anyone actually could sue nVidia. They aren't distributing GPL'd code in binary form without redistributing the source, so I don't see how they could be sued for breaking it. They aren't damaging anyone's copyright through their actions.

Really, luke, if you want to steer people away from nVidia, you'd be far better off talking about how closed source is dangerous, and how it means that ultra-anal semantics people won't be able to say they run a free OS anymore. This legal stuff just isn't true, and even if it were, would be incredibly unconvincing.

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

...

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

...

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

...

All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the license itself.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers. The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

There's a legal term which you should become aware of: "estoppel". In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

• The defendant has done or said something

to induce an expectation

• The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the

expectation...

• ...and would suffer detriment if that

expectation were false.

...

Since Linus, and your favorite kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, have already signed off on giving ndiswrapper back its GPL status, it would seem that the "GPL wrapper for non-GPL code" option is alive and well and ACKNOWLEDGED BY GREG KROAH-HARTMAN.

Again, NDISwrapper is legal because it is GPL. The NDIS drivers are legal because they are derived from the NDIS spec, and not NDISwrapper. There is no comparison here.

The irony here is that up until Linus eventually signed off on allowing ndiswrapper to use GPLONLY symbols, Linus was arguing most strongly that ndiswrapper was NOT GPL.

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

"ndiswrapper itself is *not* compatible with the GPL. Trying to claim that ndiswrapper somehow itself is GPL'd even though it then loads modules that aren't is stupid and pointless. Clearly it just re-exports those GPLONLY functions to code that is *not* GPL'd."

When Linus eventually signed off on giving ndiswrapper back its access to the GPL'd Linux kernel and GPLONLY symbols, we get nVidia's enstoppel that Linus might think that wrappers are non-GPL but he won't prevent companies from using them with his GPL'd Linux kernel. Thats enough for nVidia to continue producing binary-only Linux drivers, and for any Linux distribution to distribute them in the CDs.

The obvious reason why most of them aren't distributing binary-only drivers in their distributions isn't the legal issue (which apparently has been declared *not to exist* by the Kernel Maintainers and Kernel IP Owners Linus AND Greg), its the "non-free" issue.

...

Greg saw the change and acknowledged the change. Greg has thus given nVidia and any distribution which uses nVidia drivers (which use ndiswrapper-like wrappers to allow non-GPL'd code to work as legal Linux kernel modules) all the "estoppel" they'll ever need in court.

No, nVidia's wrapper is nothing like NDIS. It does not implement a generic API. Anything using nVidia's wrapper is inherently derived from the wrapper, since there is no other possible option they could conceivably be derived from.

The other option you are dancing around is "independently developed code". nVidia did not originally develop the drivers for Linux, thus Linus' confusion about whether or not they violate the GPL.

As Linus himself pointed out:

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

"But one gray area in particular [in the GPL] is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?"

"THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour."

... ...

"I think the NVidia people can probably reasonably honestly say that the code they ported had _no_ Linux origin."

...

...

This exception is not applicable to them.

This is also immaterial because the GPL merely refers to "derived works", and Linus has already delivered an opinion that nVidia's binary-only drivers aren't "derived works":

Linus had nothing to do with writing nVidia's driver, so how would he know?

Doesn't matter much in law if you provide an expectation to a plaintiff without knowing all the details, as you've still provided the expectation to the plaintiff. Whether or not its accurate, Linus has already provided nVidia the only legal defense argument they'll ever need to win.

Greg appears to be signing off on Linus' assumption about binary-only wrappers, so it appears even your expert witness sees no legal issues either.

You don't have to be an IP Lawyer before your opinion about your own IP counts in court. Obviously not consulting an IP Lawyer first is a mistake on your part, but it is not something which can allow you to retract any statements you make about your own IP.

Besides, the infringing part is their source wrapper, not the binary blob.

And source wrappers can be infringing without being banned from the kernel, as Linus' and Greg's "enstoppel" messages have indicated regarding ndiswrapper. Linus' opinion that ndiswrapper is non-GPL by definition is enough to make it entirely relevant to nVidia's wrapper, especially as he and Greg allow both wrappers to work with the Linux kernel.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:

On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

...

All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the license itself.

Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright holder. Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers.

Absolutely agreed. Greg KH is NOT an IP Lawyer.

The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been that binary modules are illegal.

Now that isn't really true, is it. We haven't actually heard from an IP Lawyer on this issue.

What we have heard is someone who you agree is NOT an IP Lawyer, Greg KH, state that "closed source kernel modules are illegal."

He attempted to back this up with an unverifiable (by Greg's own admission) statement that "every [IP Lawyer] that [Greg has] talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source". Greg admitted that there is no way to publicly verify his claim about the GPL and "closed source Linux drivers", that the only way to verify his claim about "closed source Linux drivers" is to agree to a "closed source verification".

So from what I've seen so far, there has been NO CITATION from IP Lawyers on "closed source Linux drivers". No one on any side in this discussion can claim that the IP Lawyers are backing them up, because by Greg's own admission the IP Lawyers will never verify any claims about "closed source Linux drivers" in public.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

--- Jeffrey Watts [email protected] wrote:

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.

And as I pointed out, if a "non-free" application's use of kernel headers is considered an enforceable violation of the GPL, then nothing non-native can legally be run in Linux, including anything run through Wine or Transgaming's Cedega.

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.

As I mentioned towards the end of the really long email message, kernel developers have put documentation into the modules.h header file indicating that they are expecting proprietary modules and as such have created a "proprietary" type. Anyone with Linux installed on a machine can see this documentation in /usr/src/linux/include/linux/module.h, showing that the kernel developers planned on having end users with proprietary drivers.

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?

____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

--- 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:

1. 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

http://tinyurl.com/2cku3s

"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

http://tinyurl.com/2knykt

"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

On Friday 04 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:

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.

In case you never noticed, nobody will ever give free legal advice on the record. Probably for fear of being held liable if they end up wrong and having had no profit from the statement. But there is nothing GPL-specific or even copyright-specific to lack of public legal statements.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:

--- 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:

1. 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."

  ____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________

There are a few elements being overlooked.

Operating System users are best served by the code base being De Minimus Libre- Even if Non Gratis.variants such as Xandros or the older Lindows projects find niche markets.

APPLICATIONS are a breed apart and the Libre,Gratis, both or Neither cases are too slippery to be dogmatic about globally. "Do you want to be debarred from ever seeing a profit of any sort?"? Or a worse alternative.. "Being prohibited from sharing code due to draconian crushing bans on any copies of ANYTHING"

Copyright Vs Copyleft ;aw embodies a base presumption of assignable rights. either refusing to allow or the freedom to grant that "right" of copying.

Copy rights are *NOT* the same as code being OPEN. let alone modifiable or reusable for other applications not explicit in status. *I* can grant you permission to make copies of a script I write and not grant you derivative rights. That's present accepted usage for practical reasons. Where ALL this goes to hell is in the willful attempts to play games with the rights of others or to "Be Evil"

We have a choice- which will WE be?

Making them both is only common sense

Not only the Libre Vs Gratis distinctions are at stake. There's a whole realm of "Trade Secret" opposed to any copyright or patent where each of the varied concepts holds power. "Look&Feel" law opens up yet more pure bad karma potency. As in claims of Oh-say "one click" for example. AFTER we exterminate all that by whatever means viable-IF ANY exist.

Then we have the meritocracy of the marketplace to appease. After al the table chess and myriad lawyers polishing mirrors with smoke? The actual being able to do anything has only begun. Linux has edged past other operating systems by a duality. T The fusion of Gratis AND Libre works magic! See Sir Arthur Clarke for details ok?

Linux advances by being both Libre and Gratis.

Non-free in both $ and Open code inherently loses. Were it not for the legacy base and literal RICO flouting conducts? Closed/non-free software would fade away into a few niches of APPLICATIONS as opposed to OPERATING SYSTEMS. . Oren Beck

816.729.3645