Greg KH using Microsoft-style FUD to attack "non-free"? (was Re: 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

I went back and looked that link up, and lets quote
that paragraph of Greg's in context:

"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. Again, it's very
simple."

The paragraph immediately following your quote was
rather enlightening (emphasis mine):

"Now **no lawyer will ever come out in public and say
this, as lawyer really aren't allowed to make public
statements like this at all**. But **if you hire
one**, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting,
they will advise you of this issue."

I am not convinced by an argument that stipulates that
the people who told Greg that "kernel modules are
illegal" will NEVER VERIFY THIS AS TRUE unless you pay
them lots of money to tell you the same thing, and
even then they can't legally discuss in public what
you've talked about in private.  It sounds more like
Greg was inventing new reasons to keep "non-free" out
of the kernel.  At least RMS was honest enough to only
use independently verifiable reasons against including
"non-free" in distributions.

In fact, Greg's "argument" sounds a lot like the
Microsoft "counterargument" when you come to them
saying that your new device isn't working and the
manufacturer says its Microsoft's OS that is the
problem: "the problem isn't in our source code, and to
verify the truthfulness of our statement, you will
have to pay a lot of money and sign a NDA."  Not much
different from "closed source Linux drivers are
illegal, and to verify the truthfulness of this
statement, you will have to pay a lot of money and
agree to the legal equivalent of a NDA."


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
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