Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 185304
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-14
> I'm not familiar with this event, so could you please
> give some references?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
> Your description doesn't sound like a GPL violation per
> se, but Debian often adopts a stricter definition of
> "free".
No, this was discussed strictly as a GPL violation. The debian fork of cdrtools, cdrkit, was also a result of this problem.
Distributing a GPL product which requires an non GPL tool to build, which is not a standard system tool usually distributed with operating systems is a GPL violation.
If this werent a GPL violation it would mean that you could distribute GPL programs that only work with additional tools, which could be proprietary and require a fee to use. The GPL prevents such a scenario.
It is a GPL violation of the nvidia wrapper if this wrapper does not perform some function or is not able to build without this binary blob. In this case they are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL but they do.