from the libertarian newspaper

[Bradley Hook]

Luke -Jr wrote:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> 
> "If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, 
> that almost surely means combining them into one program."

Dude, seriously, read the license yourself. It is obvious that you are 
relying on interpretations, which is the absolute worst thing you can do 
in the case of copyright and licensing. The very same section that you 
quote in that FAQ states:

"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal 
question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that..."

Please, take the time to read at least sections 0 and 2 of the GPL, 
version 2. These sections clearly define what conditions must be met.

> However, the current state of nVidia/ATi's drivers is not legal.

I have not looked at the nVidia/ATI installers closely enough to 
determine if this is absolutely true or false. As I recall, both 
installers require the kernel headers to already be installed on your 
system, implying that no kernel code is included in the material 
distributed by nVidia/ATI. The GPL *explicitly* states that "Activities 
other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by 
this License; they are outside its scope" (GPL v2, section 0). This 
means that running, compiling, linking, and interfacing are all outside 
the scope of the GPL. This means you need to find some other legal 
mechanism to base your claims on.

If you honestly believe nVidia/ATI are violating either the legal 
requirements or moral attitude of the GPL, then why don't you file a 
lawsuit and see if the FSF, OSDL, or any other respected OSS community 
organizations come to side with you. Of course, you need to own some 
aspect of the Intellectual Property contained in the Linux kernel before 
you can even file suit.

~Bradley