On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:08 -0500, Jan Depner wrote: > 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? > > Nvidia driver is a special case - it is not a derived work of the kernel because they use the same binary blob the Windows driver uses. I covered this earlier in the thread. Lee
