Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:56PM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
 > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 12:51 +0200, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
 > > I am still a kernel newbie, and I am still not very much aware about
 > > the GPL vs. Non-GPL drivers debate. I personally think it'd be better
 > > that all drivers should be GPL'd but if that's the case, what would be
 > > the legal position of such vendors as ATI or NVIDIA who supply closed
 > > source drivers? Would it be illegal to use them?
 > 
 > Yeah, this is a recurrent debate, and the positions are mixed. Linus
 > said that the nvidia driver isn't developed only for linux but also for
 > windows, so it's not a true derivative of the kernel, so the GPL doesn't
 > really apply. But not everyone (I mean core developpers) fully agrees
 > IIRC.

to further expand on the above question it isn't really crystal clear
whether this (from the ATI driver) is legal..
(psuedo diff vs the kernel agp drivers)



+#ifdef STANDALONE_AGPGART
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Jeff Hartmann <jhartmann@precisioninsight.com>");
 MODULE_PARM(agp_try_unsupported, "1i");
 #ifdef MODULE_LICENSE
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
+#endif


and then linking the result to their binary blob.
I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and
a half since I first brought this questionable act to their
attention.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk