[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

    >Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
    >does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
    >process", it created more grey than clarity.

    Nothing would stop someone from distributing a kernel that did not reject
    those drivers. The GPL doesn't permit you to add additional restrictions to
    it, so you can't add a clause prohibiting such distribution.

    >Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
    >modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
    >you think, feel, or care.

    There would just be a set of patches to bypass that rejection. Every major
    distribution would distribute kernels with those patches. You can't GPL code
    and at the same time control how it is used.

    As I argued in my previous post, it would be suicidal for any advocate of
    open source to attempt to broaden the scope of what constitutes a 'derived
    work' or narrow the scope of fair use or first sale type doctrines.

    Hey, we're almost back on topic for this list. Happy new year.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.025 / U:68.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site