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

--1041400288890
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 	David Schwartz <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1041400288890
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:57:23 +0000
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267172AbSLaGrO>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 01:47:14 -0500
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267171AbSLaGrO>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 01:47:14 -0500
Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:32465 "EHLO
	shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267167AbSLaGrN> convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 01:47:13 -0500
Received: from whenever ([206.171.168.130]) by shell.webmaster.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35)
          with SMTP id com; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:37 -0800
From:	David Schwartz <[e-mail]>
To:	   <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
	   <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.63 (1077) - Licensed Version
Date:	Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]@whenever>
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:57:06 +0000, [e-mail] 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