3 ms·

Precisely. Though perhaps NVidia would argue they're giving themselves a license exemption? If you understand drivers as plugins (which makes sense, really, dr

Precisely. Though perhaps NVidia would argue they're giving themselves a license exemption? If you understand drivers as plugins (which makes sense, really, drivers are kernel plugins), and if you understand plugins as derivative, it would be even worse. It would mean every driver on Windows's copyright is Microsoft's by default. And that the original NVidia closed source is already GPL.

my123 4y ago
Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way. That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was never attempted to be enforced in court. For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual C++ runtimes. It’s supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.
- pabs3 4y ago
  There is a way that Oracle could solve the ZFS situation; release a CDDLv2 that is compatible with the GPL, then the CDDLv1 auto-upgrade clause would mean that all CDDLv1 software that hasn't opted out of the upgrade clause would now be GPL compatible. Some parts of OpenZFS would need to be relicensed or reimplemented, but that job would be much smaller than reimplementing ZFS for GPL compatibility. More discussion here: https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Drivers aren't plugins. They link to and incorporate GPL code. You can't grant special terms in that scenario. The best they can do is dual license their headers. The hazy area is where no linking happens and it's just a pure API without code sharing.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Do DKMS drivers have to include headers as redistributed? I was under the impression they didn't have to, but I have very little expertise with DKMS and could definitely be wrong.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Even linking isn't as clear cut as the FSF would like it to be.

my123 4y ago

Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way. That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was never attempted to be enforced in court. For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual C++ runtimes. It’s supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.

pabs3 4y ago
There is a way that Oracle could solve the ZFS situation; release a CDDLv2 that is compatible with the GPL, then the CDDLv1 auto-upgrade clause would mean that all CDDLv1 software that hasn't opted out of the upgrade clause would now be GPL compatible. Some parts of OpenZFS would need to be relicensed or reimplemented, but that job would be much smaller than reimplementing ZFS for GPL compatibility. More discussion here: https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Drivers aren't plugins. They link to and incorporate GPL code. You can't grant special terms in that scenario. The best they can do is dual license their headers. The hazy area is where no linking happens and it's just a pure API without code sharing.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Do DKMS drivers have to include headers as redistributed? I was under the impression they didn't have to, but I have very little expertise with DKMS and could definitely be wrong.
Dylan16807 4y ago
Even linking isn't as clear cut as the FSF would like it to be.