Re: Open/Closed
"The difference is, and this should be obvious, is that, as the above states, nVidia is the copyright holder of the source code they used while Ubuntu are not."
Let's take a hypothetical.
I write a kernel module. The copyright is mine. I choose to distribute it under a commercial license, but it "links" to the kernel in the same way as ZoL. If what RMS and the FSF is saying is true, it would be classed as a derivative work and, therefore, would not be allowed to be distributed as a binary blob.
It doesn't matter who owns the copyright. The only thing that matters is that, if it is classed as a derivative work of GPL software, it must be released under the GPL or a compatible license.
Hence, the defining test is purely: Is it classed as a derivative work?
So what I would like to know is how the graphics card binary drivers differ from ZoL. There must be some material difference in the way it interacts with the kernel for it to fall foul of these license terms.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
