From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:55:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:55:43 -0500 Received: from node-d-1ea6.a2000.nl ([62.195.30.166]:13807 "EHLO laptop.fenrus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:55:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? From: Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com To: Paul Jakma Cc: Richard Stallman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7PJuMki4EQ+UJ7DDopSm" Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-Id: <1041606221.1337.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 (1.2.1-2) Date: 03 Jan 2003 16:03:41 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-7PJuMki4EQ+UJ7DDopSm Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:52, Paul Jakma wrote: > Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for=20 > binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The=20 > FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this. unfortionatly that's impossible. First of all *all* copyright holders of the kernel would need to agree to it. Second, it would make it impossible for the kernel to just incorporate other GPL code (like we do all the time, including FSF code) --=-7PJuMki4EQ+UJ7DDopSm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+FaZNxULwo51rQBIRAmgZAJ9KRLgggVEt1ugCqR2eTVJTUV9/+gCfZ1qD spSrlYBDspakeXI8fvS2Zqc= =bMrY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7PJuMki4EQ+UJ7DDopSm--