[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070215111559.GA8353@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:15:59 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
Cc: Mohammed Gamal <m.gamal005@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:56PM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 12:51 +0200, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
> > I am still a kernel newbie, and I am still not very much aware about
> > the GPL vs. Non-GPL drivers debate. I personally think it'd be better
> > that all drivers should be GPL'd but if that's the case, what would be
> > the legal position of such vendors as ATI or NVIDIA who supply closed
> > source drivers? Would it be illegal to use them?
>
> Yeah, this is a recurrent debate, and the positions are mixed. Linus
> said that the nvidia driver isn't developed only for linux but also for
> windows, so it's not a true derivative of the kernel, so the GPL doesn't
> really apply. But not everyone (I mean core developpers) fully agrees
> IIRC.
to further expand on the above question it isn't really crystal clear
whether this (from the ATI driver) is legal..
(psuedo diff vs the kernel agp drivers)
+#ifdef STANDALONE_AGPGART
MODULE_AUTHOR("Jeff Hartmann <jhartmann@...cisioninsight.com>");
MODULE_PARM(agp_try_unsupported, "1i");
#ifdef MODULE_LICENSE
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
+#endif
and then linking the result to their binary blob.
I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and
a half since I first brought this questionable act to their
attention.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists