On 2007-05-04 17:36, Benji Weber wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh please, isn't a bit silly to play the dmca card here? We're past
>> moralizing about whether it's a crime to have proper
>> hardware-accelerated OpenGL. Clearly, the nvidia driver is not a
>> dervative work of the linux kernel, otherwise how does it run so well on
>> windoze, freebsd and solaris?
>
> This is nothing todo with the DMCA. Have a look at the source of the
> nvidia driver shim (which is available, but not GPLed) you wil see it
> links to GPLed kernel components. Making it illegal to distribute
> under normal copyright law unless it is also GPLed. I suggest you read
> the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html .
Get real, Benji. With this kind of logic, it would be a violation of the
GPL whenever any proprietary software issued an "open file" request to
the GPLed system.
I did just what you suggested, and found several questions which are
useful in discerning the /intent/ of the GPL, which is all any court
will be interested in:
Q. If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release
it as Free Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?
In general, the answer is no--this is not a legal requirement. In
specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and
what their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the GNU
Lesser GPL, or use the GNU GPL plus an exception permitting linking
the library with anything. These libraries can be used in non-free
programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some
requirements you must follow.
(my comment: Thus the authors of the GPL specifically anticipate the use
of GPLed system functions by non-GPLed software, including proprietary
software. Other provisions of the GPL would seem to suggest that any
non-GPL software may not be statically linked to such libraries, but
nothing prohibits dynamic linking.)
This question specifically addresses the issue of dynamic linking, and
needs no further comment:
Q. Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?
Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile
proprietary software using gcc.
Q. Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free
programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover
the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions,
legally, on the license you use for your code.
(my comment: In the past, I have seen some suggestions that compiling
non-GPL code with GCC is a licence violation. This clearly says it is not.)
These two questions are sufficient to determine the intent of the GPL
with respect to non-GPL software running on the system, which includes
proprietary installable kernel modules.
It is clear that the GPL is not so restrictive as to prohibit
communication between the GPLed system and non-GPL applications,
including device drivers. If it were so restrictive, it would become
impossible to run any non-GPL software on the system, which would be an
unfair trade practice under anyone's laws.
So long as the distributed binary does not /contain/ any code which is
covered under the GPL, nothing in the GPL requires it to be released
under that licence (or not at all). In particular, nothing prohibits
that binary from communicating with any part of the system, including
the kernel. If it did contain such a prohibition, the licence would be
so restrictive and internally contradictory as to be rendered meaningless.
>
> GPL only applies to distribution.
Umm, no, it does not.
--
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- HG Wells
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
