video cards

[Jeffrey Watts]

There's a legitimate issue with closed source drivers and the Linux
kernel.  The issue is that the kernel isn't a library and thus isn't
distributed under the LGPL, which allows proprietary software to link
to it (and thus include function headers and such from the LGPLed
software).

nVidia's driver uses kernel headers, which is technically a violation
of the GPL.  However, this is not an issue of abuse, but more of a
unique situation, since the kernel is a unique item on a system.  It's
not an application and it's not a library, but has features of both.
The LPGL is not an appropriate copyright for the kernel - the GPL is
more appropriate. However the GPL isn't perfect either.

Stallman and Torvalds have both stated that while there is certainly
an issue, it is not violating the spirit of the Free Software
movement.  I also believe Torvalds has blessed this particular kind of
thing and said that he does not see it to be a problem.

So I put it to Luke thus (and I'm echoing Leo):  If Stallman (the most
hardheaded and fervent Free Software advocate on the planet) and
Torvalds (the reason you're here) both say it's cool, how is it that
you feel that your viewpoint is superior?

Jeffrey.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Adrian Griffis <adriang63 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  What if the nVidia driver only "#include"s some kernel header files.
>  As long as those
>  header files do not include inline code definitions (an artifact of
>  C++, not C), wouldn't
>  the effects of defined constants, declarations, and function
>  prototypes fit well into the
>  fair use exceptions?

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine