Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

David Schwartz
2002-12-31T06:47:14Z

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:57:06 +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

To respond first to your subject, GPL'd code is given to everyone to do what
they wish with, subject to certain very specific and narrow limitations.

>Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals
>from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open
>source its work on drivers,

What type of "pact" are you talking about?

>there is a clear difference between their use of
>GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do.

I presume you're talking about the inclusion of GPL'd header files into
non-GPL'd code that is then distributed without source code? IMO, if the
header file only includes things like structs and thin macros, that's
insufficient to consider the compilation a derived work.

You are welcome to argue for stronger and stronger copyright law enforcement
and narrower and narrower constructions of fair use and first sale doctrines.
However, IMO, it would be the stupidest possible thing the open source
community could ever do.

>You cannot expect embedded
>kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$
>users, but in the long run it destroys the community.

I don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit from
GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to
'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base.
Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the
open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open
source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.

DS