Alan Cox wrote:
Then, even if you do make it, you'll have to establish why this isn't
ordinary fair use of an interface required to interoperate with the kernel.
Because it's contrary to the license under which the Linux kernel is
distributed. I don't think it can be made much clearer than that, frankly.
It's not at all clear why the kernel license should control someone
else's work.
If the work is derived it isn't someone elses work, any more than if you
add a scene to a movie and redistribute it. Thats the fundamental
question - is the Nvidia driver a derived work. Some people believe no,
some believe yes, nobody "knows" in the US legal sense because nobody has
been to court to find out - and I suspect neither side considers it worth
finding out.
I don't think you want to find out that a driver is derived from the OS
it is written for, or you'll find all kinds of lawsuits crawling out of
the closet about code included in linux that was originally written
under some other OS. SCO's claims to that effect weren't really
disproven since they were mostly dismissed on other counts.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
