3 ms·

> I do not see on what grounds you can classify in this case Linux as a victim and NVIDIA as an attacker. The linux kernel is respecting it's user's rights to

> I do not see on what grounds you can classify in this case Linux as a victim and NVIDIA as an attacker. The linux kernel is respecting it's user's rights to know what code they run, and to be able to modify it. nvidia is not extending that courtesy to their users, even though the linux kernel's possibly-legally-enforceable copyright insists that nvidia has to extend such a right. nvidia can release their source code as GPL if they want to use the GPL parts of the kernel. Are you just as mad at nvidia for having a proprietary driver but not letting users apply patches to the driver? I assure you, the license nvidia distributes its drivers under is much more restrictive than linux's GPL license. Like, if you're mad that the linux developers are making it harder for nvidia to violate linux's license and make a derivative work of the linux kernel, surely you're even madder that nvidia's developers have made it even harder for anyone to make a derivative work of nvidia's proprietary driver blobs, right?

adrian_b 3y ago
I do not agree with the theory that linking one program to another makes the former a derivative of the latter, therefore I do not agree that a kernel module is a derivative of the kernel, when it just uses the interfaces that must be used to accomplish its function. If this theory, which is the only point of disagreement between me and Richard M. Stallman, would be accepted to be true, then what would stop Microsoft to claim that every program that has ever been written to run on Windows is the property of Microsoft? When there are two hardware vendors, one who offers open-source device drivers and one that offers proprietary drivers, I would always choose the one with open-source device drivers. Unfortunately, in the case of NVIDIA there are applications for which no other vendor attempts to provide competitive products, so there is no alternative choice. Therefore it does not matter if I would be "mad" at NVIDIA, as that could change nothing. On the other hand, I am "mad" at this kind of kernel developers, because I do not accept that they have any right to dictate to the Linux users what kind of hardware they should buy. Obviously, they should not support NVIDIA, but inventing methods to sabotage the Linux users that have NVIDIA GPUs is not a justifiable activity.
- TimeBearingDown 3y ago
  If a kernel module is not derivative of the kernel, what use does it then serve once separated from any Linux GPL code?
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    This argument is lame. If a Windows program is not a derivative of the Win32 libraries owned by Microsoft, what use does it serve once separated from the Microsoft libraries? If an Android application is not a derivative of the Android OS owned by Google, what use does it then serve once separated from the Android base system? If any C program that has ever been written (except those written for freestanding environments) is not a derivative of the C Standard Library, what use does it serve once separated from libc? If your argument were right, with the exception of the very small number of programmers who write programs for bare-metal embedded systems, all the other programmers have written all their lives only derivative programs, so none of them (or of their employers) has any right to claim copyright ownership on what they have written.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      The OS/user-space boundary has always been defined by Linux (and by Linus) as a license boundary. And the GPL has always noted exceptions for system-provided libraries. Kernel modules run inside kernel-space. They are completely unlike user space applications.
      - adrian_b 3y ago
        > They are completely unlike user space applications. Why? I cannot see any difference from the POV of copyright. There is no difference between the loading of a kernel module that must discover the addresses of the kernel symbols that it must use and the loading of a user-mode executable that must discover the addresses of the symbols that it needs from the libc shared library. Also the GPL does not allow the bundling of non-GPL kernel modules with the Linux kernel but it cannot restrict in any way the right of any Linux users to use the kernel by loading any kernel modules they want. These attempts made periodically by some kernel developers to cripple the performance of the non-GPL kernel modules by hiding the useful kernel symbols when such modules are loaded by the end users have nothing to do with the GPL. They also do not hurt NVDIA or other hardware vendors, but only the Linux end users, whose systems become broken after kernel updates.

adrian_b 3y ago

I do not agree with the theory that linking one program to another makes the former a derivative of the latter, therefore I do not agree that a kernel module is a derivative of the kernel, when it just uses the interfaces that must be used to accomplish its function. If this theory, which is the only point of disagreement between me and Richard M. Stallman, would be accepted to be true, then what would stop Microsoft to claim that every program that has ever been written to run on Windows is the property of Microsoft? When there are two hardware vendors, one who offers open-source device drivers and one that offers proprietary drivers, I would always choose the one with open-source device drivers. Unfortunately, in the case of NVIDIA there are applications for which no other vendor attempts to provide competitive products, so there is no alternative choice. Therefore it does not matter if I would be "mad" at NVIDIA, as that could change nothing. On the other hand, I am "mad" at this kind of kernel developers, because I do not accept that they have any right to dictate to the Linux users what kind of hardware they should buy. Obviously, they should not support NVIDIA, but inventing methods to sabotage the Linux users that have NVIDIA GPUs is not a justifiable activity.

TimeBearingDown 3y ago
If a kernel module is not derivative of the kernel, what use does it then serve once separated from any Linux GPL code?
- adrian_b 3y ago
  This argument is lame. If a Windows program is not a derivative of the Win32 libraries owned by Microsoft, what use does it serve once separated from the Microsoft libraries? If an Android application is not a derivative of the Android OS owned by Google, what use does it then serve once separated from the Android base system? If any C program that has ever been written (except those written for freestanding environments) is not a derivative of the C Standard Library, what use does it serve once separated from libc? If your argument were right, with the exception of the very small number of programmers who write programs for bare-metal embedded systems, all the other programmers have written all their lives only derivative programs, so none of them (or of their employers) has any right to claim copyright ownership on what they have written.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    The OS/user-space boundary has always been defined by Linux (and by Linus) as a license boundary. And the GPL has always noted exceptions for system-provided libraries. Kernel modules run inside kernel-space. They are completely unlike user space applications.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      > They are completely unlike user space applications. Why? I cannot see any difference from the POV of copyright. There is no difference between the loading of a kernel module that must discover the addresses of the kernel symbols that it must use and the loading of a user-mode executable that must discover the addresses of the symbols that it needs from the libc shared library. Also the GPL does not allow the bundling of non-GPL kernel modules with the Linux kernel but it cannot restrict in any way the right of any Linux users to use the kernel by loading any kernel modules they want. These attempts made periodically by some kernel developers to cripple the performance of the non-GPL kernel modules by hiding the useful kernel symbols when such modules are loaded by the end users have nothing to do with the GPL. They also do not hurt NVDIA or other hardware vendors, but only the Linux end users, whose systems become broken after kernel updates.