Benji Weber wrote:

They will not be distributed by openSUSE/Novell as the drivers violate the Linux kernel developers' copyright, so openSUSE/Novell would be a party to copyright infringement.

I thought that issue was because it's not open source. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Benji Weber wrote:

On 5/4/07, Simon Lewis wrote:

...

Dear openSUSE developers/packagers

Ubuntu 7.04 now has 3 NVIDIA drivers in restricted modules:

nvidia-glx-legacy (1.0-7184) nvidia-glx (1.0-9631) #Last version to support Geforce 2 MX 400 amongst others nvidia-glx-new (1.0-9755)

It would be nice to have the same 3 drivers in the openSUSE 10.2 non-oss repository.

Nvidia host these packages themselves in the repository at ftp://download.nvidia.com/opensuse/10.2/ . Add this to yast -> installation sources -> add -> specify URL, and install the packages.

No, this repo contains only the 1.0-9631. He's saying (and I agree, since it's obviously the right thing to do) that it would be nice to have the same choice of drivers as ubuntu, because these drivers are not a "one size fits all" proposition. For some cards, only the legacy driver will work, while other, newer cards will only work with the latest. Suse users are stuck with only the stable version whether it works or not, otherwise they have to do the manual download and install, and have to rebuild the driver glue after every kernel update. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Benji Weber wrote:

On 5/4/07, Sloan wrote:

...

He's saying (and I agree, since it's obviously the right thing to do) that it would be nice to have the same choice of drivers as ubuntu, because these drivers are not a "one size fits all" proposition. For some cards, only the legacy driver will work, while other, newer cards will only work with the latest. Suse users are stuck with only the stable version whether it works or not, otherwise they have to do the manual download and install, and have to rebuild the driver glue after every kernel update.

Ask Nvidia to host the latest version of their drivers if you want. Just because ubuntu are willing to break copyright law, and hope linux developers don't sue them, doesn't mean that Novell/openSUSE can.

Oh please, isn't a bit silly to play the dmca card here? We're past moralizing about whether it's a crime to have proper hardware-accelerated OpenGL. Clearly, the nvidia driver is not a dervative work of the linux kernel, otherwise how does it run so well on windoze, freebsd and solaris? The real need here is for proper driver support for opensuse users, not finger pointing and arguing with video card vendors, and their customers. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Why can Ubuntu include the NVIDIA drivers in there repository and openSUSE can't...??? Ubuntu even has a excellent restricted modules manager which identifies the correct NVIDIA driver to install. Above all, Ubuntu has very conservative policy regarding product infringements. I have the impression that openSUSE is missing something here... Simon Benji Weber schrieb:

On 5/4/07, Sloan wrote:

...

Oh please, isn't a bit silly to play the dmca card here? We're past moralizing about whether it's a crime to have proper hardware-accelerated OpenGL. Clearly, the nvidia driver is not a dervative work of the linux kernel, otherwise how does it run so well on windoze, freebsd and solaris?

This is nothing todo with the DMCA. Have a look at the source of the nvidia driver shim (which is available, but not GPLed) you wil see it links to GPLed kernel components. Making it illegal to distribute under normal copyright law unless it is also GPLed. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html .

It is not a crime to use the nvidia drivers , it merely infringes copyright to /distribute/ them. GPL only applies to distribution.

_ Benjamin Weber

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Hello Matthias That is exactly the point, Novell IS a large American company. If it wanted to, it would find a way to come to an agreement with nVidia, just as Microsoft has done ;-) Simon Matthias Hopf schrieb:

On May 05, 07 09:45:00 +0200, Simon Lewis wrote:

...

Why can Ubuntu include the NVIDIA drivers in there repository and openSUSE can't...???

Actually, Ubuntu *cannot* include them as well. They just don't give a damn and just do it.

...

Above all, Ubuntu has very conservative policy regarding product infringements.

Dream on. Novell is a large American company, thus it has to be much more careful than Canonical. Which isn't American in the first place.

This has been discussed to death. It is *impossible* for us to ship binary only drivers for NVIDIA and ATI in their current state, not for technical reasons, but for legal reasons. Full stop.

Stop complaining here, this will lead to nothing.

Matthias

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Matthias Hopf wrote:

...

Why can Ubuntu include the NVIDIA drivers in there repository and openSUSE can't...???

Actually, Ubuntu *cannot* include them as well. They just don't give a damn and just do it.

That's cool isn't it? :D

...Canonical. Which isn't American in the first place.

That's even better. ;)

This has been discussed to death. It is *impossible* for us to ship binary only drivers for NVIDIA and ATI in their current state, not for technical reasons, but for legal reasons.

Strange... "2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)." Source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html Or in German if you like. 2.1.2 Ausnahme für Linux. Ungeachtet der unter 2.1.1. aufgeführten Bedingungen darf SOFTWARE, die exklusiv für die Verwendung unter Linux Betriebssystemen erstellt wurde, kopiert und weitergegeben werden – vorausgesetzt, dass die Binärdateien dieser Software nicht modifiziert werden (abgesehen vom Extrahieren komprimierter Dateien). http://www.nvidia.de/object/nvidia_license_de.html

Stop complaining here, this will lead to nothing.

Indeed.

Matthias

Jan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Benji Weber wrote:

Yes, Nvidia are fine with people redistributing them, the Linux kernel developers are not.

I can't assess your statement fully coz I'm not a lawyer. However where is the problem to take those rpm packages: http://download.nvidia.com/opensuse/10.2/ and implement them into the distro-image? IMO it would be complient with nvidia's licence agreement. So nvidia provides even SUSE rpms. What is all about then? There would be no implementation into the kernel per se. If you ask me it's more politics than law m8. Nevertheless, personally I don't care, but IMO it ain't good for the image of Opensuse not to provide those drivers out of the box and that's a shame. Cheers Jan PS: I know those files got hidden in the mean time but still it works in Yast. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. schrieb:

You don't understand:

I did not. Indeed.

the problem is the kernel license.

So you're saying that the drivers are in direct violation with GPL2? Thus nvidia can publish them but opensuse ain't...politics, geez. But OK. In that case there is no need for me to dig any further. Thx Jan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On May 08, 07 11:47:44 +0200, Jan Tiggy wrote:

...

the problem is the kernel license. So you're saying that the drivers are in direct violation with GPL2?

Many kernel developers say: Yes. Few say: No. Quite some say: Don't care. This hasn't been brought up to court, thus any claim that it is a direct violation is just that: a claim. We make business with distributing the Linux kernel, we cannot risk being sued. Nvidia can. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On May 09, 07 18:23:43 +0200, Simon Lewis wrote:

Instead, the argument is over whether the video card manufactures are stealing the kernel developers property, when in fact the video driver manufactures are allowing the kernel manufactures to widely distribute the Linux kernel to the mass users... Without the video drivers no one could use the Linux kernel...

It would be interesting to know which video driver each of the kernel developers use when they themselves do not permit the distribution of the video drivers..?

There are enough free video drivers available, if you don't need 3D. Kernel developers typically don't need 3D, and even for that some open source drivers exist (radeon (Ugh!), intel). No, they are typically not fast enough for recent games. Kernel developers typically don't care, because they don't play these games - I can't blame them, it's about interests and priorities. Note that quite some kernel developers don't even use X, just framebuffer consoles. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2007-05-04 17:36, Benji Weber wrote:

On 5/4/07, Sloan wrote:

...

Oh please, isn't a bit silly to play the dmca card here? We're past moralizing about whether it's a crime to have proper hardware-accelerated OpenGL. Clearly, the nvidia driver is not a dervative work of the linux kernel, otherwise how does it run so well on windoze, freebsd and solaris?

This is nothing todo with the DMCA. Have a look at the source of the nvidia driver shim (which is available, but not GPLed) you wil see it links to GPLed kernel components. Making it illegal to distribute under normal copyright law unless it is also GPLed. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html .

Get real, Benji. With this kind of logic, it would be a violation of the GPL whenever any proprietary software issued an "open file" request to the GPLed system. I did just what you suggested, and found several questions which are useful in discerning the /intent/ of the GPL, which is all any court will be interested in: Q. If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as Free Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license? In general, the answer is no--this is not a legal requirement. In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the GNU Lesser GPL, or use the GNU GPL plus an exception permitting linking the library with anything. These libraries can be used in non-free programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow. (my comment: Thus the authors of the GPL specifically anticipate the use of GPLed system functions by non-GPLed software, including proprietary software. Other provisions of the GPL would seem to suggest that any non-GPL software may not be statically linked to such libraries, but nothing prohibits dynamic linking.) This question specifically addresses the issue of dynamic linking, and needs no further comment: Q. Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking? Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc. Q. Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them? Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code. (my comment: In the past, I have seen some suggestions that compiling non-GPL code with GCC is a licence violation. This clearly says it is not.) These two questions are sufficient to determine the intent of the GPL with respect to non-GPL software running on the system, which includes proprietary installable kernel modules. It is clear that the GPL is not so restrictive as to prohibit communication between the GPLed system and non-GPL applications, including device drivers. If it were so restrictive, it would become impossible to run any non-GPL software on the system, which would be an unfair trade practice under anyone's laws. So long as the distributed binary does not /contain/ any code which is covered under the GPL, nothing in the GPL requires it to be released under that licence (or not at all). In particular, nothing prohibits that binary from communicating with any part of the system, including the kernel. If it did contain such a prohibition, the licence would be so restrictive and internally contradictory as to be rendered meaningless.

GPL only applies to distribution.

Umm, no, it does not. -- Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- HG Wells -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On May 6, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Alexey Eremenko wrote:

I would like to see more proprietary drivers and applications in openSUSE. This includes: NVIDIA, softmodems, Wifi, ...

Why then don't you email SUSE/Novell and make this request instead of sending this short statement to thousands of users on a help list that most SUSE employees don't pay attention too? -ben -- "We should forgive our enemies. But not before they are hanged." Heinrich Heine -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 5/6/07, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

This is nothing todo with the DMCA. Have a look at the source of the nvidia driver shim (which is available, but not GPLed) you wil see it links to GPLed kernel components. Making it illegal to distribute under normal copyright law unless it is also GPLed. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html .

Get real, Benji. With this kind of logic, it would be a violation of the GPL whenever any proprietary software issued an "open file" request to the GPLed system.

No the shim links to gpled kernel at build time.

I did just what you suggested, and found several questions which are useful in discerning the /intent/ of the GPL, which is all any court will be interested in:

Q. If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as Free Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?

In general, the answer is no--this is not a legal requirement. In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the GNU Lesser GPL, or use the GNU GPL plus an exception permitting linking the library with anything. These libraries can be used in non-free programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow.

(my comment: Thus the authors of the GPL specifically anticipate the use of GPLed system functions by non-GPLed software, including proprietary software. Other provisions of the GPL would seem to suggest that any non-GPL software may not be statically linked to such libraries, but nothing prohibits dynamic linking.)

This question specifically addresses the issue of dynamic linking, and needs no further comment:

Q. Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?

Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc.

This is a specific exception, it has no bearing.

Q. Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?

Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

(my comment: In the past, I have seen some suggestions that compiling non-GPL code with GCC is a licence violation. This clearly says it is not.)

These two questions are sufficient to determine the intent of the GPL with respect to non-GPL software running on the system, which includes proprietary installable kernel modules.

Proprietary installable kernel modules are rather different to either of these examples.

It is clear that the GPL is not so restrictive as to prohibit communication between the GPLed system and non-GPL applications, including device drivers. If it were so restrictive, it would become impossible to run any non-GPL software on the system, which would be an unfair trade practice under anyone's laws.

Communication is not the same thing as the shim linking to the kernel.

So long as the distributed binary does not /contain/ any code which is covered under the GPL, nothing in the GPL requires it to be released under that licence (or not at all). In particular, nothing prohibits that binary from communicating with any part of the system, including the kernel. If it did contain such a prohibition, the licence would be so restrictive and internally contradictory as to be rendered meaningless.

This is why libraries are often made lgpl, kernel is GPL and the non-gpl shim links to it at compiletime, have a look at the sources of the shim. If the shim were made GPL perhaps it would be a more grey area. The shim's sources are available, but look at the licence headers on the files, it is nowhere near GPL.

...

GPL only applies to distribution.

Umm, no, it does not.

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. " Nothing in the GPL restricts /use/ of a program. So people can use the nvidia drivers all they want, only the redistribution is illegal. Even if you were correct your opinion differs from that of several kernel developers who have received legal advice on the matter, and it would be those who would be taking legal action. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On May 07, 07 10:27:18 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

No the shim links to gpled kernel at build time. And when I compile anything that opens a file, it has to link to the GPLed system library at build time too. That does not preclude me from

LGPL. That's *the* main difference from GPL. You're allowed to link proprietary software against LGPL, but not against GPL. E.g. Trolltech's Qt is GPL, thus you are only allowed to link GPL compatible software against libqt. Also, libc is a system library, and for that there are additional relaxations. But we're talking about the kernel here, and that's a monolithic block of code.

Do you mean that kernel source winds up compiled into the driver(s) after compilation/linkage is complete? If that is the case, then you are

No, the kernel source code winds up compiled into the kernel! The user space drivers for Xorg are no problem, as Xorg is BSD-style license.

So what? You have yet to demonstrate that the nVidia drivers are a derivative work of the kernel.

Some kernel developers say it's trivial to demonstrate that. Few say it's not. Some don't care. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On May 08, 07 09:23:50 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

LGPL. That's *the* main difference from GPL. You're allowed to link proprietary software against LGPL, but not against GPL.

If that is the actual intent of the GPL, then IMO it constitutes an

Yes.

unfair trade practice. What do you make of Linus Torvalds's own addition

No.

above the GPL (it's in the /usr/src/linux/COPYING file that you guys distribute with the kernel):

"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."

Yes, and the kernel driver by definition is linked in kernel space. We are *not* talking about user programs here.

So no kernel code is actually compiled into the nVidia drivers, correct?

This is exactly where the trouble starts. The driver uses kernel headers, for instance. Also, compilation is irrelevant, it's linking. And loading a driver (even during runtime) means linking.

Those drivers merely refer to kernel values so they can be hooked into it at run-time, correct? That seems to constitute "fair use" under anyone's laws, and it certainly does under Torvalds's own published exception, and any attempt to unduly limit fair use is an unfair trade practice.

Again: Please read it: Many kernel developer consider this breaking the GPL. They are the ones who have written the code, so they are more qualified of talking about it than you and me are.

...

Some kernel developers say it's trivial to demonstrate that. Few say it's not. Some don't care. On the basis of what I have seen so far, you would have an easier time convincing me that the Eurofighter is a derivative of the Sopwith Camel because they both have wings.

*Sigh* The point is: I don't *have* to convince you. *I* consider loading proprietary drivers is fair use. But that is not the point, there are many kernel developers who don't. That is the point. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

* John Andersen [05-08-07 15:55]: [...]

If you can't call a kernel function/method, then how could you use the kernel at all? By your definitions, any proprietary software designed to run on linux would be illegal to run on linux.

As I read his statement, I believe he says that 'running' is not the problem, the problem is distribution and, perhaps, intention. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

How about a restricted modules manager that downloads and installs the correct driver from the nvidia download site? Simon Sloan schrieb:

Benji Weber wrote:

...

On 5/4/07, Sloan wrote:

...

He's saying (and I agree, since it's obviously the right thing to do) that it would be nice to have the same choice of drivers as ubuntu, because these drivers are not a "one size fits all" proposition. For some cards, only the legacy driver will work, while other, newer cards will only work with the latest. Suse users are stuck with only the stable version whether it works or not, otherwise they have to do the manual download and install, and have to rebuild the driver glue after every kernel update.

Ask Nvidia to host the latest version of their drivers if you want. Just because ubuntu are willing to break copyright law, and hope linux developers don't sue them, doesn't mean that Novell/openSUSE can.

Oh please, isn't a bit silly to play the dmca card here? We're past moralizing about whether it's a crime to have proper hardware-accelerated OpenGL. Clearly, the nvidia driver is not a dervative work of the linux kernel, otherwise how does it run so well on windoze, freebsd and solaris?

The real need here is for proper driver support for opensuse users, not finger pointing and arguing with video card vendors, and their customers.

Joe

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 5/5/07, Simon Lewis wrote:

Hello Benji

Thanks for your reply. I added ftp://download.nvidia.com/opensuse/10.2/ to my yast sources.

The 1.0-9631 driver is there , which I need for this PC on which I am writing the e-mail.

For my other in the PC I need the 1.0-7184 driver and that is not available in the above repository.

Jengelh packages them on his repository http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-jengelh/SUSE-10.2/ but they depend on his own kernel I think . You'd be better off grabbing the .spec from the build service and building the legacy driver yourself I would think. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org