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

--1041400752366
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

you are incorrect about how the GPL works you are attempting to anger me but I dont care, go and learn, finish school, then annoy me.

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

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0800 A Guy Called Tyketto <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1041400752366
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from emory.viawest.net ([216.87.64.6]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Wed, 1 Jan 2003 05:51:47 +0000
Received: from bellicha.wizard.com (dyn39.nas6.vegas.viawest.net [209.170.209.39])
	by emory.viawest.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/viawest-2.1) with ESMTP id h015pkuQ013683;
	Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:51:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from bradl@localhost)
	by bellicha.wizard.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h015pjY08939;
	Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0800
From: A Guy Called Tyketto <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.4.19 (i686)
X-uptime: 21:35:07 up 26 days, 16:33,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
X-RSA-KeyID: 0xE9DF4D85
X-DSA-KeyID: 0xE319F0BF
X-GPG-Keys: see http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto/pgp.html
Return-Path: [e-mail]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:30:18AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> They are stealing by changing GPL files, and not giving the source, its 

        And just how the smeg do you KNOW they're CHANGING these files, aye? 
Do you have some super secret K-9 nose that the rest of us don't, and can 
tell? Have you reverse engineered the binary to see? Please, enlighten us.

not for personal use so they are DISTRIBUTING it, and INCLUDING IT. 

        This does not make sense. You're saying they're changing GPL'd files, 
though they can use them any way they choose, as long as they notify the 
original author of the changes they made. Whether they redistribute the CODE, 
is up to them. They chose not to. As long as they have notified those who 
wrote the headers, no GPL violation has been made.

BUT they dont give out their DERIVED source. 

        Once again, there is no clause in the GPL that states they MUST give 
out the code. All they need to do is notify the author. Also, They MUST give 
out the code, if they've MODIFIED the headers. You'd be stewing and eating 
your boots for dinner if NVidia released the code, and you found no headers to 
be modified. their code, they can do anything they want. But for the headers, 
all they'd need to do for changing their code, is to keep a current version of 
the headers from the kernel, and program their C code to their content. Once 
again, No. GPL. Violation.
 
I work with C everyday and when you put in a header file you are including it,
all kernel headers are GPL. I read the license 4 times a day and have 
since 1995.

        And we don't deal with C at all. The kernel is programmed in COBOL, 
ADA, Modula-2, Mumps, and Pick. Hell, I just might port it part of it over to 
Logo. Oh damn.. Apple will sue me for that.. Let's port it to C! I'll learn 
it, with my trusty Visual C, and Borland C compilers! </sarcasm>

                                                        BL.
-- 
Brad Littlejohn                         | Email:        [e-mail]
Unix Systems Administrator,             |           [e-mail]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :)   |   http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
  PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

--1041400752366--