4 ms·

Technically that's wrong. Anything you distribute to another person needs to be GPL. You can link and load anything you want into the kernel for your own purp

Technically that's wrong. Anything you distribute to another person needs to be GPL. You can link and load anything you want into the kernel for your own purposes. Personally, I'm not persuaded that a loadable proprietary kernel module would constitute a derivative work, I don't see how the GPL could be enforced on a 3rd party like that. I think the courts and juries would be very sympathetic to Nvidia.

jeroenhd 3y ago
If the GPL status wasn't a problem, Nvidia wouldn't be so nice to Linux. They could just as easily patch out the GPL symbol routines in a malware like fashion, yet the billion dollar company decides to play nice. All Linux would need is for one court in one relevant jurisdiction to interpret GPL like they do. If a French court forces Nvidia to stop making selling data centre products in France, that'd be enough to seriously hurt Nvidias's bottom line. Maybe the Texas it Hamburg courts will side with Nvidia, but Nvidia needs to win everywhere and Linux only needs to win once.
grotorea 3y ago
IANAL, but I suspect you're right. The GPL restricts redistribution, but does it impose any restriction on someone who downloads and compile their own kernel and downloads and links the NVIDIA driver against it, then never redistributes it? However the Linux devs are still allowed to do whatever they want to make it harder on NVIDIA. Also I assume the distros count as redistributors so they probably can't combine NVIDIA and GPL parts of the kernel.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Nvidia wants to distribute their proprietary driver separate from the kernel. GPL is a copy-left license, meaning any derivative works are subject to the GPL. Currently Nvidia creates a proprietary driver that is not specific to linux, thus is not a derivative work. Then, they create a 'shim' layer that links their driver into the kernel. While the shim is a derivative work, the driver is not, thus copy-left doesn't apply to the driver. I think many/most would consider the ability to write loadable kernel modules an "API". Google v Oracle decided in the US Supreme court that APIs are not copyrightable. From [1]: > Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. IMO, Nvidia doesn't even need a shim layer, they're just playing nice. If push comes to shove, I think Nvidia will win in court. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
  - cmeacham98 3y ago
    > Google v Oracle decided in the US Supreme court that APIs are not copyrightable. This is not true. The appeals court ruled that the API was copyrightable, and the Supreme Court opted not to rule on whether or not APIs are copyrightable. What the Supreme Court actually ruled on is that in this specific instance, Google's use of the API would qualify as fair use - and thus it didn't matter if the API is copyrightable or not.
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Anyway, Google re-implemented the Java API in many areas, not just wrote code to interact with it. Either way, I think a loadable module would fall under similar treatment.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

jeroenhd 3y ago

If the GPL status wasn't a problem, Nvidia wouldn't be so nice to Linux. They could just as easily patch out the GPL symbol routines in a malware like fashion, yet the billion dollar company decides to play nice. All Linux would need is for one court in one relevant jurisdiction to interpret GPL like they do. If a French court forces Nvidia to stop making selling data centre products in France, that'd be enough to seriously hurt Nvidias's bottom line. Maybe the Texas it Hamburg courts will side with Nvidia, but Nvidia needs to win everywhere and Linux only needs to win once.

grotorea 3y ago

IANAL, but I suspect you're right. The GPL restricts redistribution, but does it impose any restriction on someone who downloads and compile their own kernel and downloads and links the NVIDIA driver against it, then never redistributes it? However the Linux devs are still allowed to do whatever they want to make it harder on NVIDIA. Also I assume the distros count as redistributors so they probably can't combine NVIDIA and GPL parts of the kernel.

linuxftw 3y ago
Nvidia wants to distribute their proprietary driver separate from the kernel. GPL is a copy-left license, meaning any derivative works are subject to the GPL. Currently Nvidia creates a proprietary driver that is not specific to linux, thus is not a derivative work. Then, they create a 'shim' layer that links their driver into the kernel. While the shim is a derivative work, the driver is not, thus copy-left doesn't apply to the driver. I think many/most would consider the ability to write loadable kernel modules an "API". Google v Oracle decided in the US Supreme court that APIs are not copyrightable. From [1]: > Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. IMO, Nvidia doesn't even need a shim layer, they're just playing nice. If push comes to shove, I think Nvidia will win in court. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
- cmeacham98 3y ago
  > Google v Oracle decided in the US Supreme court that APIs are not copyrightable. This is not true. The appeals court ruled that the API was copyrightable, and the Supreme Court opted not to rule on whether or not APIs are copyrightable. What the Supreme Court actually ruled on is that in this specific instance, Google's use of the API would qualify as fair use - and thus it didn't matter if the API is copyrightable or not.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Anyway, Google re-implemented the Java API in many areas, not just wrote code to interact with it. Either way, I think a loadable module would fall under similar treatment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]