video cards

[feba thatl]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 )
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
> Kclug mailing list
>  Kclug at kclug.org
>  http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>

I have to agree with this. You have to consider that most people don't
really care about copyright law that much, I mean, look at how many
people download CDs and movies and such. I'd be surprised if a few of
the people in this conversation aren't here because someone gave them
an alternative to pirating Windows. Your other points would be far
more damaging to people's opinion of nVidia, which is the only logical
reason I see for you to continue this.

As to the legality of using binary drivers (although I must state that
it still seems like that Greg's words were only intended for BINARY
DRIVERS DISTRIBUTED WITH THE KERNEL), what is illegal and what is not
is in the opinion of the courts-- and quite honestly, it seems
ludicrous to believe that any court would find against nVidia;
especially given the opinions of Stallman, Torvalds, and I'd imagine a
large majority of the kernel devs, not to mention many other experts,
as well as users. In addition, I don't see a situation where anyone
actually could sue nVidia. They aren't distributing GPL'd code in
binary form without redistributing the source, so I don't see how they
could be sued for breaking it. They aren't damaging anyone's copyright
through their actions.

Really, luke, if you want to steer people away from nVidia, you'd be
far better off talking about how closed source is dangerous, and how
it means that ultra-anal semantics people won't be able to say they
run a free OS anymore. This legal stuff just isn't true, and even if
it were, would be incredibly unconvincing.