3 ms·

what are you talking about, if this is a violation you'd see it in courts but it's not because there's no case

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TheDong 3y ago
Most crimes don't end up in courts. Doubly so when one side is a corporation with an ungodly amount of money, and the other side is a group of difficult to organize nerds who would struggle to show real damages. Things not showing up in courts proves basically nothing, and if you think it does, well, I'd be happy to sell you a lawyer who will charge you $200k to win a case over the course of 3 years netting you a judgement of $25k at the end. Regardless of the legal aspect though, nvidia's clearly in the moral wrong. The kernel ships with a license that tries to protect user's freedom to modify its source code, and the source code for derived works. nvidia is acting counter to that license, and counter to its user's freedom.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Given that at least some other OSs see drivers as 3rd party programs and not derived works of the kernel, I don't see why we should consider Nvidia morally in the wrong. I find it much more likely that they are legally in the wrong, though.
  - vilunov 3y ago
    Linux being a monolithic kernel and drivers being a derivative work is an important design choice, which arguably is an important reason Linux became so popular now, as it forces everyone to contribute to the common pool, if they wish to use others' work. One group deciding that they are an exception is morally wrong in my eyes, because it undermines that idea.
- justin66 3y ago
  > Most crimes don't end up in courts. It would lend credibility to your arguments if you understood the difference between criminal and civil actions.
cryptonector 3y ago
> if this is a violation you'd see it in courts but it's not because there's no case Not every violation needs to be pursued in civil court. It's not even possible -- the courts would melt down and stop operating, or they'd raise their fees to the point of reducing caseload. "No lawsuit" does not imply "no case".
gwd 3y ago
> if this is a violation you'd see it in courts but it's not because there's no case Not everyone can sue; only people who have standing. Traditionally this would be people who own the copyright -- but on the whole, the core Linux developers have been very resistant to the idea of ever suing. I know Greg KH has come out firmly against it, and a quote above has Linus saying something similar. (I think their attitude is as foolish as saying that you should never ever ever use violence to prevent crime or defend your country.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Most crimes don't end up in courts. Doubly so when one side is a corporation with an ungodly amount of money, and the other side is a group of difficult to organize nerds who would struggle to show real damages. Things not showing up in courts proves basically nothing, and if you think it does, well, I'd be happy to sell you a lawyer who will charge you $200k to win a case over the course of 3 years netting you a judgement of $25k at the end. Regardless of the legal aspect though, nvidia's clearly in the moral wrong. The kernel ships with a license that tries to protect user's freedom to modify its source code, and the source code for derived works. nvidia is acting counter to that license, and counter to its user's freedom.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Given that at least some other OSs see drivers as 3rd party programs and not derived works of the kernel, I don't see why we should consider Nvidia morally in the wrong. I find it much more likely that they are legally in the wrong, though.
- vilunov 3y ago
  Linux being a monolithic kernel and drivers being a derivative work is an important design choice, which arguably is an important reason Linux became so popular now, as it forces everyone to contribute to the common pool, if they wish to use others' work. One group deciding that they are an exception is morally wrong in my eyes, because it undermines that idea.
justin66 3y ago
> Most crimes don't end up in courts. It would lend credibility to your arguments if you understood the difference between criminal and civil actions.

cryptonector 3y ago

> if this is a violation you'd see it in courts but it's not because there's no case Not every violation needs to be pursued in civil court. It's not even possible -- the courts would melt down and stop operating, or they'd raise their fees to the point of reducing caseload. "No lawsuit" does not imply "no case".

gwd 3y ago

> if this is a violation you'd see it in courts but it's not because there's no case Not everyone can sue; only people who have standing. Traditionally this would be people who own the copyright -- but on the whole, the core Linux developers have been very resistant to the idea of ever suing. I know Greg KH has come out firmly against it, and a quote above has Linus saying something similar. (I think their attitude is as foolish as saying that you should never ever ever use violence to prevent crime or defend your country.)