On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:04 +1000 Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with > >> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code > >> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights > >> > holders concerned. > >> > >> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn't a relicense of anything. > > > > In your opinion. Are you a qualified IP attorney - NO. Are you my lawyer > > - NO. Does my laywer disagree with you - YES. > > Okay then we should remove this code from the kernel forthwith, as I > showed it was illegally relicensed previously in your lawyers opinion. That would not be the same question I asked my lawyer. Anyway I refer you to the Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1. Anything Signed off was submitted under the GPL and so is usable as part of a GPL derived work, but not as part of a non GPL derived work. Thus Nouveau can happily use it for example. Simples. And as I said before if Nvidia believe the _GPL makes no difference and their work is not derivative then it's clearly within their power to just ignore it, at which point *they* take the risk on their own. >From the fact this patch keeps getting resubmitted despite repeated objection I deduce they are in fact of the view it does matter and that therefore it is a licensing change and they are scared of the consequences of ignoring it. Alan _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
