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, 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.

Absolutely agreed.  Greg KH is NOT an IP Lawyer.

> The only citation of IP lawyers thus far in 
> this discussion has been that binary modules 
> are illegal.

Now that isn't really true, is it.  We haven't
actually heard from an IP Lawyer on this issue.

What we have heard is someone who you agree is NOT an
IP Lawyer, Greg KH, state that "closed source kernel
modules are illegal."  

He attempted to back this up with an unverifiable (by
Greg's own admission) statement that "every [IP
Lawyer] that [Greg has] talked to all agree that there
is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel
module, today, that can be closed source".  Greg
admitted that there is no way to publicly verify his
claim about the GPL and "closed source Linux drivers",
that the only way to verify his claim about "closed
source Linux drivers" is to agree to a "closed source
verification".

So from what I've seen so far, there has been NO
CITATION from IP Lawyers on "closed source Linux
drivers".  No one on any side in this discussion can
claim that the IP Lawyers are backing them up, because
by Greg's own admission the IP Lawyers will never
verify any claims about "closed source Linux drivers"
in public.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
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