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

From: Arjan van de Ven (arjanv@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 10:03:41 EST

Next message: Tomas Szepe: "Re: [STUPID] Best looking code to transfer to a t-shirt"
Previous message: Anders Gustafsson: "Re: [STUPID] Best looking code to transfer to a t-shirt"
In reply to: Paul Jakma: "Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:52, Paul Jakma wrote:

> Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for
> binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The
> FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this.

unfortionatly that's impossible.
First of all *all* copyright holders of the kernel would need to agree
to it. Second, it would make it impossible for the kernel to just
incorporate other GPL code (like we do all the time, including FSF code)

application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part

-
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/

Next message: Tomas Szepe: "Re: [STUPID] Best looking code to transfer to a t-shirt"
Previous message: Anders Gustafsson: "Re: [STUPID] Best looking code to transfer to a t-shirt"
In reply to: Paul Jakma: "Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:21 EST