11 Jun
2006
11 Jun
'06
4:38 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 18:04 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 16:50 -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
That's the consensus among kernel people. Not lawyers. Take it to
court first. It has zero chance in that venue.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 14:23 -0400, Lee Revell
wrote:
Um.... of course it's a matter of copyright law, that's what this thread
is about. Who said anything about coding?
My point was that as far as copyright law is concerned, a driver written
for the Linux kernel is a derived work of Linux.
Of course I could be wrong as it has not been tested in court, but that
seems to be the consensus among the kernel people who have talked to
lawyers about it.
Nvidia driver is a special case - it is not a
derived work of the kernel
because they use the same binary blob the Windows driver uses.
I covered this earlier in the thread.
That's merely semantics, you can use any binary blob you want as
long as you don't derive from GPL'ed software. It makes absolutely no
difference what it was "specifically designed" to run on. This is a
matter of copyright law, not coding.