Re: nvidia

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 <[email protected]>
All-Round Linux Tinkerer & RHCE


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux