Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Thread beginning with comment 185411
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
No, it's a violation that only the user should decide to make. There is nothing cloudy about it. You cannot legally link GPL with non-GPL compatable code. This might have been different were the kernel licensed under LGPL, but the GPL specifically prohibits it.
Actually the GPL does not prohibit linking to non GPL code. The GPL prohibits distributing it but nothing else. In fact the GPL explicity says that you can do anything you want to the code. The exceptions only come into play if you are distributing code. The GPL is a license to distribute, not a EULA. There is a gray area when it comes to what you consider derived works and whether or not binary blobs can be distributed if they are tied in some way to the kernel, but Nvidia gets around that because their binary is universal. If it was Linux-only a case could be made against it but kernel developers don't seem to be interested in those kinds of legal tangles anyway.