Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."
Thread beginning with comment 208043
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: license incompatiablity
by Oliver on Thu 1st Feb 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: license incompatiablity"
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

Guess why, because the Nvidia driver isn't open source! You shouldn' read the excerpt above only, but the whole text at the website too. If it's ready you're using sourcecode of webcams and FreeBSD Linux emulation layer. The latter is already known since years.

Reply Parent Score: 1

FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Uhm... no? I quote butters:
"Probably by using the (unfortunately not so well known) fact that NO free software license places restrictions on how you USE the code (as opposed to distributing the code). Rest assured that you are free to link code licensed under incompatible licenses to your heart's content as long as you don't distribute the linked binary."

According to butters, the license of the kernel module doesn't matter, as long as you don't distribute the linked binary. And that's exactly what NVidia is doing: they're not distributing linked binary kernel modules.

Reply Parent Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Butters is right. This "compile by yourself is legal" clause is one (if not the main) reason why the attempt to block all binary kernel modules as of 2008/01/01 suggested by GKH recently was turned down[1].

With respect to the binary video drivers from NVIDIA and ATI the two crucial points are

- That distributions can't distribute the already linked binary kernel modules (like for example in the incident with the Kororaa Live CD[2])

- Whether the wrapper code for the binary blob itself can be considered a derivative work of the kernel, or just a code "using the structures provided by the kernel"

I have little experience with the latter issue (although it seems to be a proverbial grey area that is here to remain), but the first is almost clearly in violation of the GPL and should therefore be avoided.

Hope that clears things up

[1]http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475890
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kororaa#Kororaa_XGL_Live_CD_and_the_GP...

Reply Parent Score: 4

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

According to butters, the license of the kernel module doesn't matter, as long as you don't distribute the linked binary. And that's exactly what NVidia is doing: they're not distributing linked binary kernel modules.

Actually, they are. nVidia does make binary modules compiled against specific versions of Suse distribution kernels available for download, for instance.

Their legal department seems comfortable with the fact that their binary blob is not derivative of the kernel, since it is OS-agnostic and the exact same blob is used on Windows and *nix. I suspect their legal department is correct.

Reply Parent Score: 4