On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:15 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:33 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:12 -0400, M P Smoak wrote:
> > > > So a company that wanted to have a proprietary connection to linux
> > > > could write an open source blob and a closed connection to the blob
> > > > for their closed hardware/software? ie linux remains useable for
> > > > companies.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not if the closed part was specifically developed to run on Linux. The
> > > key is whether it's a "derived work" as far as copyright law is
> > > concerned or not.
> > >
> >
> > You can develop a closed package to specifically run on Linux. It
> > is not in violation of the GPL. This is the old Micr$oft "GPL is a
> > cancer" FUD. What you can't do is use GPL code in a closed application.
> >
>
> I am talking about KERNEL DRIVERS. Please re-read the thread. Of
> course you can develop a closed USERSPACE package.
>
> The kernel is GPL. Drivers are part of the kernel. Therefore you
> cannot develop a closed source kernel driver.
>
What would you call the NVIDIA driver?
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
