3 ms·
This is not the derivation argument (that would be forcing GPL on Nvidia, which they want to counter, of course). This is about GPL infrigment; you can combine
by vetinari 8y ago
This is not the derivation argument (that would be forcing GPL on Nvidia, which they want to counter, of course).
This is about GPL infrigment; you can combine GPL licensed code with differently licensed code, but only in your privacy, without distributing the result to others. Once you would distribute the result, you would be breaking GPL, thus having no right to distribute.
- monocasa 8y agoThe GPLv2 literally defines itself in relation to trees of derived works: > The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. The argument that I've is that even when linked together, the Nvidia binary driver isn't a 'derivative under copyright law' because it doesn't have Linux specific entry points, and is older than their Linux port, and therefore isn't part of "The 'Program'" as listed in the GPL.
- vetinari 8y agoGPL defines itself by four essential freedoms. Your argument is, why some piece of software should (or should not) be relicensed to GPL. My argument is, that since that piece of software is currently not GPL licensed; avoids the relicensing topics and explores how to solve the current situation wrt distribution of the combined work. Use by the end-user is non-issue, due to freedom 0.
- monocasa 8y agoTheir argument is that even if linked and distributed, there is no GPL violation for the reasons above.