video cards

[Adrian Griffis]

That simply doesn't follow.  It doesn't matter how often that argument is
repeated.  Linking doesn't make a derivative work.  The two are linked;
One is dependent on the other;  But, neither is derived from the other.
That's just not what the word "derived" means.

Adrian

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Bradley Hook <bhook at kssb.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Leo Mauler wrote:
>  | "Derivative works are not going to encompass plug-ins
>  | and DEVICE DRIVERS that are designed to be linked from
>  | other off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs.  If Linux
>  | is designed to accept separately-designed plug-in
>  | programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely
>  | running such a program under Linux, even if you have
>  | to look at the Linux source code to learn how to do
>  | so."
>
>  Actually, you DO create a derivative work by "running" programs/modules
>  of this nature under Linux. The loaded process includes a substantial
>  portion of the Linux kernel (because it IS the Linux kernel), and
>  therefore you are running a derivative work. However, that isn't the
>  issue with GPL code, because once the code legally makes it to your
>  machine you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT so long as you don't redistribute
>  it outside of the GPL allowances.
>
>  The derivative work isn't created until you load the module into the
>  kernel. Before that, it is a work which DEPENDS ON but is not DERIVED
>  FROM the kernel. In other words, it is legal to distribute a proprietary
>  module which DEPENDS ON the kernel, so long as it isn't distributed with
>  the kernel or any substantial portion of it. If you get your kernel
>  source from kernel.org, and your nVidia package from nvidia.com (which
>  doesn't include any kernel code), then you can legally compile and run
>  the resulting module without violating the GPL. If you redistribute the
>  resulting module, you ARE violating the GPL from a technical standpoint,
>  but since the module can be legally built without violating the GPL, it
>  is a moot point because it is only for convenience.