Thus, Raman Gupta at Mon Oct 29 08:57:07 2007 inscribed: > Anders Karlsson wrote: [snip: suggestion to query the license part on LKML] > Actually, to quote Linus on LKML, in discussion of whether or not binary > modules are "derived" or not, specifically related to Nvidia: > > "I think the NVidia people can probably reasonably honestly say that the > code they ported had _no_ Linux origin." [1] > > Yes, I'm quite aware that many people will simply argue that it doesn't > matter what Linus thinks as he is not the sole copyright holder in the > kernel, and so on and so forth. Save it -- that's already at LKML too. Just > wanted to point out that the LKML archives are not as clear on this point > as you make out. > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234 This is true, and this is not a simple matter, even for legally trained people. I simply think that while there is a question open on the legality of certain drivers and packages, arguing about their licenses and that Fedora should incorporate them no matter what is counter-productive to the aims of *this* list. The legal issue stems from the kernel side and the use of the module interface to said kernel. This is not a distribution issue, this is an issue related to the kernel, and as such, should in all honesty be debated on the mailing list devoted to the kernel. YMMV -- Anders Karlsson <anders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> All-Round Linux Tinkerer & RHCE
