video cards

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>  *One* author/copyright holder has expressed permission. Countless others have
>  not, and some have even taken technical-level steps toward trying to prevent
>  it (eg, the patch to make Linux refuse to load incompatibly licensed
>  modules).

I see the crux of your argument here, though I'd argue that it's a
last stand, given that you've retreated on everything else you've
said.

I'd like to point out that nobody is disagreeing that the distribution
of precompiled Linux kernel drivers is a technical violation of the
GPL.  What we're arguing is that the significant parties involved have
stated that this violation is due to a limitation of the license -
does not violate the "spirit" of the license.

We're talking _practically_ here.  I can see that you're not.  Your
aforementioned "nVidia-killer" patch didn't get accepted into the
kernel, right?  Why is that?

BECAUSE LINUS TORVALDS CONTROLS KERNEL DEVELOPMENT AND REFUSES PATCHES
WHICH DO DUMB STUFF LIKE THAT.  HIS OPINION TRUMPS ALL OTHERS.  FOR
ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES HE "OWNS" THE KERNEL AND IF HE SAYS NVIDIA IS
NOT INFRINGING, THEY ARE NOT.  :)

Hehe, 'nuff said.

>  Also, non-enforcement does not count as "implied permission" in regard to
>  copyrights, only trademarks (and then the trademark is lost entirely).

Well, Linus has publicly stated that what nVidia is doing is okay.
That's better than "implied permission", it _is_ permission.  See my
above overuse of caps.

Jeffrey.

-- 

"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