Re: GPL and Nvidia

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Hell.Surfers]

lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc, perhaps its time I seeked legal advice.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
> legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
> irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as

You now may have committed a software crime.
You have taken software you may not be licensed or authorized to have.

> they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
> help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL

Then go beg them for a job, but then again if you knew jack about their
product, you would be squelched by now.

> ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL
> modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl
> code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing
> is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI
> could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source
> drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt
> even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to
> say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch
> is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could
> only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia
> included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc,
> perhaps its time I seeked legal advice.

Yes it is because if I owned Nvidia, I would snatch you into a court of
law so fast for piracy you boots would still be warm while empty.

Your petty rants only add more death nails to Linux in going forward in
the commerial and business model.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Dan Egli]

Andre Hedrick wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
>
>  
>
>>lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
>>legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
>>irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as
>>    
>>
>
>You now may have committed a software crime.
>You have taken software you may not be licensed or authorized to have.
>
>  
>
>>they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
>>help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL
>>    
>>
>
>Then go beg them for a job, but then again if you knew jack about their
>product, you would be squelched by now.
>
>  
>
>>ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL
>>modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl
>>code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing
>>is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI
>>could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source
>>drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt
>>even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to
>>say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch
>>is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could
>>only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia
>>included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc,
>>perhaps its time I seeked legal advice.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes it is because if I owned Nvidia, I would snatch you into a court of
>law so fast for piracy you boots would still be warm while empty.
>
>Your petty rants only add more death nails to Linux in going forward in
>the commerial and business model.
>
>Regards,
>
>Andre Hedrick
>LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>  
>
A voice of reason! Many users like nVidia's cards. I certainly love 
them. Are the absolute best cards? No. Do they have every legal right to 
publish drivers the way they do? Yes.

Now I agree with what was said earlier. This subject is being fought to 
death, and then some. Let's let it die. It is quite appearant that not 
everyone is going to agree on this.

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Dan Egli wrote:

> them. Are the absolute best cards? No. Do they have every legal right to 
> publish drivers the way they do? Yes.

well... that isnt actually very clear. AIUI, they rely on informal
exceptions made by Linus (in posts to l-k) to the kernel's licence
re: exported interfaces and binary modules.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andrew Walrond]

I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)

Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to 
gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up 
with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux, 
but am very glad they do.

IMO The only license we need is

"Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way 
you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it - 
great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always 
welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"

We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't 
want them to starve ;)

Too late for gnu/linux though. :(

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Gerhard Mack]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
>
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
> but am very glad they do.
>
> IMO The only license we need is
>
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
>
> We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't
> want them to starve ;)
>
> Too late for gnu/linux though. :(

So you want a BSD licence...

There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
source version.  For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
designed to do and that's  a good thing.

	Gerhard


--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[David Schwartz]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:21:59 -0500 (EST), Gerhard Mack wrote:

>There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
>IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
>someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
>proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
>source version.  For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
>designed to do and that's  a good thing.

	I don't understand why making proprietary software better and cheaper than 
it would otherwise be is a bad thing.

	It will be better because it will have a stronger base to build on. It will 
be cheaper both because it will be easier to construct and because it will 
have to compete with free software that is more similar to it.

	And, believe it or not, free software benefits as much from competition as 
proprietary software does.

	DS

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andre Hedrick]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:21:59 -0500 (EST), Gerhard Mack wrote:
> 
> >There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
> >IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
> >someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
> >proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
> >source version.  For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
> >designed to do and that's  a good thing.
> 
> 	I don't understand why making proprietary software better and cheaper than 
> it would otherwise be is a bad thing.
> 
> 	It will be better because it will have a stronger base to build on. It will 
> be cheaper both because it will be easier to construct and because it will 
> have to compete with free software that is more similar to it.
> 
> 	And, believe it or not, free software benefits as much from competition as 
> proprietary software does.
> 
> 	DS

AH!  A man of reason here!

It would be nice if "LI" got in the business of issuing license
subscriptions for binary only modules.  Where the binary vendor must
register and pay a royality fee.  This fee would be used to support "LI"
and defend Linux in a court case if needed.

I personally would gladly pay a reasonable (usual and customary) fee for
the service and right to sell binary models with out having to pay a
lawyer to write a "position" and be prepared to sue every snot nose brat
in the world.

Otherwise, one has to deal with unreasonable people.

There are people who do not work for distros or have found that other
companies want to control their contributions to GPL, but need a means to
support themselves with there other works related to emerging
technologies.

Obviously I am being way to sensible about the issue, and should go use
NetBSD instead and give them the license money.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> AH!  A man of reason here!
> It would be nice if "LI" got in the business of issuing license
> subscriptions for binary only modules.  Where the binary vendor must
> register and pay a royality fee.  This fee would be used to support "LI"
> and defend Linux in a court case if needed.
> I personally would gladly pay a reasonable (usual and customary) fee for
> the service and right to sell binary models with out having to pay a
> lawyer to write a "position" and be prepared to sue every snot nose brat
> in the world.
> Otherwise, one has to deal with unreasonable people.
> There are people who do not work for distros or have found that other
> companies want to control their contributions to GPL, but need a means to
> support themselves with there other works related to emerging
> technologies.
> Obviously I am being way to sensible about the issue, and should go use
> NetBSD instead and give them the license money.

I don't give two hoots about the money or the open/closed stuff in the
context of "Is it the right thing to do?" or "What should nvidia do?"
nvidia's drivers have developed a bad reputation, at least in my mind,
and I don't want their bugreports (even though RH was hurt worst here),
and I don't want my betatesters adding that unknown into the equation.

Supposedly they've improved lately, not that I care. One only need be
bitten once.

Maybe having no way to prove a bug's fixed is a downside of binary modules.


Bill

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Helge Hafting]

David Schwartz wrote:

>         I don't understand why making proprietary software better and cheaper than
> it would otherwise be is a bad thing.
> 
There's nothing wrong with doing that - but _I_ wouldn't work making
proprietary software better unless I got paid for it.

If linux had a BSD licence you'd get fewer developers, because some
would say "I don't want to do free work on a proprietary product
someone else sell & have exclusive rights to."

Of course readhat and others sell linux for money, but you can legally
copy
redhat software and re-sell it if you want to.  Thanks to the GPL.
Mandrake started out doing something like that, although they added
their
own improvements.  Competition in the free software world.

>         It will be better because it will have a stronger base to build on. It will
> be cheaper both because it will be easier to construct and because it will
> have to compete with free software that is more similar to it.
> 
A bit naive.  Software pricing do not reflect the cost of development at
all.
Windows is one example - with their volume they don't need to charge
much.


>         And, believe it or not, free software benefits as much from competition as
> proprietary software does.

Sure!  And free software compete with quite a few proprietary products
as you know.
But competition where the competitor gets to use all of your software
but
you can't use the competitor's software?  That's the kind of unfair
competition
you may get with a BSD licence.

Helge Hafting

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
> 
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to 
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up 
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux, 
> but am very glad they do.
> 
> IMO The only license we need is
> 
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way 
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it - 
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always 
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"

We don't need a 2nd BSD license, one is more than enough. Let Linux and
BSD offer alternatives. Of course given the relative success of Linux and
BSD I think we can safely say that the decision has been made as to which
will be more appealing to users, although I'm not totally sure why.

I actually prefer a license which says may be freely used in open source
freely redistributable software, and otherwise requires a commercial
license with royalty. In other words, "this is my gift to humanity to be
freely used and enjoyed. If you insist on limiting or concealing it I want
to make money on it, too." 

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andre Hedrick]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> 
> > I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
> > 
> > Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to 
> > gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up 
> > with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux, 
> > but am very glad they do.
> > 
> > IMO The only license we need is
> > 
> > "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way 
> > you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it - 
> > great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always 
> > welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
> 
> We don't need a 2nd BSD license, one is more than enough. Let Linux and
> BSD offer alternatives. Of course given the relative success of Linux and
> BSD I think we can safely say that the decision has been made as to which
> will be more appealing to users, although I'm not totally sure why.
> 
> I actually prefer a license which says may be freely used in open source
> freely redistributable software, and otherwise requires a commercial
> license with royalty. In other words, "this is my gift to humanity to be
> freely used and enjoyed. If you insist on limiting or concealing it I want
> to make money on it, too." 

Cheers!  Another person of reason.
However you argument is flawed because how do you divide the royalty?
It can only work if there is a trusted body made up of sane people like
yourself and nutters like Hell.Surfers.  Then you need a few kernel kooks
in the mix.

Something like a Corporate Board for Linux ... sigh ...

This will never happen, because ....

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
> 
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to 
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up 
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux, 
> but am very glad they do.

Frankly, I'm surprised there are people out there who don't _like_ freedom 
(and the perpetuation thereof.)

> 
> IMO The only license we need is
> 
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way 
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it - 
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always 
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"

That's the gist of the BSD license :-)

> 
> We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't 
> want them to starve ;)
> 
> Too late for gnu/linux though. :(
> 

Too late for you to screw it up?

I take it you're not very interested in perpetuation of freedom.

> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andrew Walrond]

A "freedom" banner in one hand and a thick license document in the other 
  beginning "GPL: Thou shall not...", and a fat, smiling lawyer behind you.

Makes me glad to be alive ;)

The BSD license sounds great, but I bet mine's shorter :)

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Jon Portnoy]

Freedom is something that has to be perpetuated and guaranteed, which is 
what the GPL does. The BSD approach is this: "We're offering you this free 
(as in freedom) software which you can then use and redistribute as 
proprietary software as long as we get credit."

This is like drawing up a constitution for a new country that says "We 
give you these rights and the power to totally eliminate them."


On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> A "freedom" banner in one hand and a thick license document in the other 
>   beginning "GPL: Thou shall not...", and a fat, smiling lawyer behind you.
> 
> Makes me glad to be alive ;)
> 
> The BSD license sounds great, but I bet mine's shorter :)
> 

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
> legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
> irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as
> they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
> help them with those modules, they include GPL routines

Where is your proof that nvidia includes copyrightable GPL
routines in their driver ?

Without such proof, you have no grounds to make an accusation
against nvidia.

Yes, I am at times annoyed by getting reports about "kernel bugs"
that turn out to be caused by the nvidia driver, but that doesn't
change the fact that that driver is made by nvidia and they get
to decide if and how they want to publish it.

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 239 bytes --]

and how would it work otherwise? without GPL include/files? magic? divine act of god?

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:35:10 -0200 (BRST) 	Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1923 bytes --]

From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "" <andre@linux-ide.org>
Subject: Re: GPL and Nvidia
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:35:10 -0200 (BRST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50L.0301011432500.2429-100000@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
> legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
> irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as
> they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
> help them with those modules, they include GPL routines

Where is your proof that nvidia includes copyrightable GPL
routines in their driver ?

Without such proof, you have no grounds to make an accusation
against nvidia.

Yes, I am at times annoyed by getting reports about "kernel bugs"
that turn out to be caused by the nvidia driver, but that doesn't
change the fact that that driver is made by nvidia and they get
to decide if and how they want to publish it.

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Bill Davidsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1105 bytes --]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> and how would it work otherwise? without GPL include/files? magic? divine act of god?

It seems to me that the same principle which applied to libraries and
finally resulted in LGPL also applies to header files, and that if
anything we (FSF or Linus) might want to consider HGPL or a clarification
of the use of headers.

I think it is counter to the long term good of open source software to try
to prevent a valuable use which promotes use of Linux in general.

That said, I'm not sure if there is benefit to nVidia in keeping the
driver source closed, but that's their choice. I would think that the
methods could easily be determined by reverse engineering and disassembly,
and that GPL would actually protect the method, since any driver based on
the source would be a derived work. I'm not a lawyer, so don't try to
argue with me on the legalities, my conclusion is based purely on what a
reasonable person might conclude.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.