video cards

[Luke -Jr]

On Thursday 03 April 2008, feba thatl wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >  > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > >  Avoid nVidia unless you agree with all of these statements:
> >  > >  1. Don't care that this combination is illegal.
> >  >
> >  > Never heard that one before.
> >
> >  I'll cite Greg on this one...
> >
> >  "I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers
> > over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all
> > agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module,
> > today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun
> > things like derivative works and linking and other stuff."
> >
> >  * http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
>
> That looks like it's talking about working them into the kernel and
> distributing it, not just using it in a system.

*You* might be "just using it in a system", and the GPL makes it clear that 
mere use is always legal. However, *nVidia* is doing exactly what you admit 
is illegal: working it into the kernel and distributing the code for that.

> Much in the same way that I could make a change to my copy of the source,
> compile it to a binary and never release it; but if I release the binary, I
> have to give out the source too.

The GPL terms apply equally to source as they do to a binary.