Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 185317
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 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-02
[i]The developers (Nvidia) or the redistributor (Ubuntu) would just act illegally if they distribute the wrapper under the GPL when it needs this binary blob to work.[i/]
Wrong. It's perfectly legal to distribute GPL'ed sources linked to non-GPL'ed sources. It is however not legal to distribute proprietary packages linked to GPL'ed packages.
But GPL can always link to non-GPL. However, non-GPL becomes GPL when linked to GPL. That's also why you can distribute the nVidia-drivers. If distributing the nVidia-driver was truly a GPL-violation FSF would have attacked nVidia long ago.