On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 16:50 -0500, Jan Depner wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 14:23 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > 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. > > > > That's merely semantics, you can use any binary blob you want as > long as you don't derive from GPL'ed software. It makes absolutely no > difference what it was "specifically designed" to run on. This is a > matter of copyright law, not coding. > Um.... of course it's a matter of copyright law, that's what this thread is about. Who said anything about coding? My point was that as far as copyright law is concerned, a driver written for the Linux kernel is a derived work of Linux. Of course I could be wrong as it has not been tested in court, but that seems to be the consensus among the kernel people who have talked to lawyers about it. Lee
