video cards

[Leo Mauler]

--- 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

Sorry this one is long, but I think that there's a lot
of confusion over what is "illegal linking" and what
is "legal linking", that needs to be addressed right
away.

I think I can one-up you on expert witnesses, since I
can cite Richard Stallman as he doesn't find anything
illegal about closed-source proprietary nVidia
drivers:

GROKLAW
The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time, 
by Richard Stallman
Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:22 AM EDT

http://tinyurl.com/2cku3s

"So what did Sun actually do? It allowed more
convenient redistribution of the binaries of its Java
platform. With this change, GNU/Linux distros CAN
INCLUDE the non-free Sun Java platform, just as some
now include the non-free nVidia driver. But they do so
only at the cost of being non-free."

If RMS thinks that closed-source binary nVidia drivers
are legal, and in particular don't violate the GPL,
then I really don't see how ANYONE ELSE can claim
they're illegal.  Note his only complaint is that they
are non-free.  If it was illegal to do non-free binary
modules, then he would have said so as it would make
for a stronger argument against non-free drivers.

But other folks have weighed in on this in support of
nVidia drivers being "legal" even if they're
"non-free".  This gentleman has written quite a bit on
the topic of closed-source kernel modules.  Here's his
point that if all instances of "linking" are
considered to be "GPL-covered linking", then you
cannot run Adobe PDF Reader in Linux.  Nor can you run
Adobe Flash, or any other closed-source application,
because all of them "link to the GPL'd kernel" in the
same way that nVidia closed-source proprietary kernel
modules "link to the GPL'd kernel".

http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/politics/kmodsGPL.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2knykt

"There is also significant looseness in the term
'linking' and it would be helpful to differentiate
between various varieties of linking and to provide
clear definitions of such."

"Linking to independently written code is not
considered building on GPL'd code. For example, every
single binary (apart from the kernel itself) links to
the kernel. Every single binary repeatedly calls the
kernel to regulate communication with the hardware,
etc. This type of linking of open or CLOSED SOURCE
binaries to the GPL'd kernel is fine and no one (who
has a clue) claims otherwise."

"Using Linux kernel-header-files is NOT considered
stealing GPL'd code. These are the instruction files,
telling a program how it should link to the kernel. It
is vital that all programs (proprietary or free) talk,
or link, to the kernel in this way."

"For example, when Adobe Acrobat Reader is compiled
for Windows it uses Windows-header-files to establish
the necessary linkage to the Windows kernel. This
linkage to the Windows kernel does not imply that
Adobe Acrobat Reader is violating Microsoft's
copyright, or licenses, any more than Adobe Acrobat
Reader violates the GPL when it compiles against
Linux-kernel-header-files in order to communicate with
the Linux kernel."

"The Linux kernel interface is absolutely necessary
for programs to talk, or link, to the kernel. A
program that cannot link to the kernel is clearly
totally worthless."

nVidia drivers link only to the kernel in ways which
are required of any application running in Linux. 
nVidia does not link its drivers to GPL'd application
modules or libraries.

If nVidia drivers are "violating the GPL", then any
non-GPLed software running in Linux is also "violating
the GPL".  If linking a non-GPLed application to the
kernel IN ANY WAY is illegal, then non-native code is
illegal because all of it will have to "link to the
kernel."

Finally, it is of interest to note that the kernel
developers themselves envisage a combination of
proprietary and GPL kernel modules, as you can see
when you read the documentation section of the header
file module.h, found at
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/module.h.

The fact is that closed-source binary kernel modules,
such as the nVidia drivers, aren't illegal, and saying
that they are is doing Microsoft's FUD for them.  For
"free", no less.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com