Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

From: Dave Jones
Date: Thu Feb 15 2007 - 06:16:36 EST


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