4 ms·

Didn't some Linux maintainers had very clear legal words for NVidia when they tried to make a kernel HAL/ABI?

• dathinab 6y ago
  NoyesNo, Nvidia tried to make a doggy legally questionable workaround for license aspects, so it's not quite the same. Also as far as I remember (I might be wrong) the google HAL isn't a abstraction/redirection in the low level kernel module layer it lives on a higher abstraction level and was meant to make the amount of ways braking less but never planed to add abstractions on top of which you could build a graphics driver or CPU support (which doesn't only affect drivers but potential also kernel compiler time conditional compilations).
  • koolba 6y ago
    Still not as a bad as Linuxant: https://lwn.net/Articles/82305/ https://lwn.net/Articles/82305/
    • Something1234 6y ago
      I'm having trouble understanding the issue was here. Linuxant produced a module that lied to the kernel about being a non-binary blob. Am I correct, but I'm still having trouble understand how the company survived since they seem to have a website up still.
      • corty 6y ago
        Linux kernel license enforcement is very lax. Most binary blob drivers probably violate GPL in one way or the other, as do the "GPL-condom" half-open-source "drivers" that do most of their stuff in a userspace blob. When asked about it most kernel developers point to closed-door negotiations that are being kept confidential. Usually also saying "trust us, we know what we are doing, we'll get more source opened our way". Those who actually try to enforce GPL publically are ignored or shunned, e.g. Harald Welte/LaForge of gpl-violations.org