Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers?

Steven Barnhart
2003-01-07T00:00:07Z

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 17:04, David Schwartz wrote:
> You can aim this criticism at many other people in this
> conversation, but not me. I think I'm the only one who does
> differentiate clearly.
>
> >Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage.
>
> Really? How do you read a book? You bounce a light off it and make a
> copy of the book on your retina, right? In other words, you use
> things by copying them.
> Yes, copies *of* *that* *book*. But when you make a copy of the book
> on your retina, your eyes and brain are not a derived work. When you
> use photoshop, the graphics you create are not a derived work.
>
> I submit that the *only* way to use a header file is to include it
> in a source file, and compile and copy the resultant output. Note
> that you cannot run a program without copying it. It's physically
> impossible.
>
> Right, because we recognize that a graphic created with photoshop is
> *not* a derived work of photoshop. A brain that has read a book is
> not a derived work of that book. Similary, a program whose source
> code includes a header file should not be considered a derived work
> of that header file.
Amazing how the topic changes so differently when it origionated as a
battle against NVidia. Amazing how sick I am of recieveing this topic in
my mailbox. Please end it somehow..there's no need for it anymore. It
has been concluded that we don't have to listen to rms if we don't want
too and that half of us will use proprietary software if we want to or
if their is no good free replacement. Ending it there.
--
Steven
sbarn03@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94