video cards

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
>  > --- Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>  > > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
>  > > > --- Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>  > > > > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
>  > > > > > All significant parties - the guy that wrote the GPL, the guy that
>  > > > > > wrote Linux - say what nVidia is doing is okay, and that the issue
>  > > > > > isn't what they are doing, but is instead a limitation of the
>  > > > > > license itself.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Greg, the guy I quoted earlier, is a Linux developer and copyright
>  > > > > holder.  Furthermore, none of the developers nor RMS are IP lawyers.
>  > > > > The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in this discussion has been
>  > > > > that binary modules are illegal.
>  > > >
>  > > > There's a legal term which you should become aware of: "estoppel".  In
>  > > > general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:
>  > > >
>  > > > * The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
>  > > > * The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
>  > > > * ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
>  > > >
>  > > > In linux/COPYING we read that Linus has created an expectation that his
>  > > > copyright doesn't make binary drivers illegal simply through making
>  > > > system calls:
>  > > >
>  > > > linux/COPYING says: "This copyright does *not* cover user programs that
>  > > > use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered
>  > > > normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading
>  > > > of "derived work"."
>  > >
>  > > Again, nVidia's blobs are neither user programs nor merely use system
>  > > calls.
>  >
>  > Actually that isn't true.  nVidia's driver uses a GPL'd "shim" or "wrapper",
>  > which means that the GPL'd wrapper makes all the system calls, and the
>  > nVidia driver makes calls only to the GPL'd wrapper.
>
>  I highly recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_call and learn
>  that a system call is not merely "calling a function in the kernel". nVidia's
>  driver does not (AFAIK) use system calls, and certainly does not ONLY use
>  system calls.
>
>  Also, if you want to assert that the source code wrapper included is GPL,
>  nVidia is clearly in violation for not including the license text with it,
>  nor even a notice that it falls under the GPL. The only reference to the GPL
>  relating to nVidia's driver is a comment in the Changelog stating that
>  they "Removed all GPL'd code from nv.c.".
>
>  And if the wrapper were to be GPL'd, as is legally necessary from the fact
>  that it is derived from Linux, it would be illegal to link it to
>  nVidia's "kernel independent component", which is not GPL-compatible.
>
>
>  > Since Linus, and your favorite kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, have
>  > already signed off on giving ndiswrapper back its GPL status, it would seem
>  > that the "GPL wrapper for non-GPL code" option is alive and well and
>  > ACKNOWLEDGED BY GREG KROAH-HARTMAN.
>
>  Again, NDISwrapper is legal because it is GPL. The NDIS drivers are legal
>  because they are derived from the NDIS spec, and not NDISwrapper. There is no
>  comparison here.
>
>
>  > Greg saw the change and acknowledged the change.  Greg has thus given nVidia
>  > and any distribution which uses nVidia drivers (which use ndiswrapper-like
>  > wrappers to allow non-GPL'd code to work as legal Linux kernel modules) all
>  > the "estoppel" they'll ever need in court.
>
>  No, nVidia's wrapper is nothing like NDIS. It does not implement a generic
>  API. Anything using nVidia's wrapper is inherently derived from the wrapper,
>  since there is no other possible option they could conceivably be derived
>  from.
>
>
>  > > This exception is not applicable to them.
>  >
>  > This is also immaterial because the GPL merely refers to "derived works",
>  > and Linus has already delivered an opinion that nVidia's binary-only drivers
>  > aren't "derived works":
>
>  Linus had nothing to do with writing nVidia's driver, so how would he know?
>  Besides, the infringing part is their source wrapper, not the binary blob.


I'll say this more clearly. I'm all for open source, and against
binary blobs, but I think the arguement of legality to be totally
irrelevant. The other points you originally made were much more
poignant.


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )