Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1165 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] tiny-nvidia-installer removed from factory
  • From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:15:32 -0800
  • Message-id: <20061102231532.GB19481@xxxxxxx>
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 12:00:52AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:42:02PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
> >>>> Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>> I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy
> >>>>>> both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk.
> >>>>>> (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
> >>>>> Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
> >>>> I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party.
> >>>> I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo:
> >>>>
> >>> Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop
> >>> shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal
> >>> reasons.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to
> >>> take it on.
> >>>
> >>> But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of
> >>> infringement quite seriously...
> >>
> >> Greg, thanks for threatening.
> >
> > How is the fact that I consider the distribution of a pre-built nvidia
> > driver that links against my copyrighted GPL code a "threat" when it is
> > others that are doing the illegal act?
> No legal actions are been taken against nvidia, but you threaten a team
> of people who have been making packages for SUSE Linux since many years,
> in their free time.
> How cool is that.

How do you know that no legal action is being taken against nvidia?

Why do you think that nvidia does not ship binary packages but makes the
user build the package and link it together?

Yes, there are some special cases where the package is pre-built, and
some of us are working to address that issue.

So don't think that just because you do not see anything happening in
public, that it is not.

> > Am I supposed to just turn a blind eye to others who violate the license
> > of the code that I release under the GPL?
> Tell that to nvidia.

And I'm not? How do you know this? Have you asked anyone about it?

> You know exactly that this is currently a totally grey zone.

No I do not. I do not know of a single IP lawyer that thinks it is a
"grey zone", they all state that they do not know of any way that it
would be possible to distribute a pre-built, closed source Linux driver
in a legal manner.

Do you know of others that think otherwise?

> Wow, you're my hero.

Thanks, I'm glad someone is backing me up :)

> > Would any closed-source company do the same if it was the other way
> > around? So, why is it such a "bad" thing for us to protect our
> > licenses?
> Read above, you're simplifying the context.

No I am not.

> I'm not questioning the GPL nor the fact that it is your work and you
> put it under whatever license you want. I don't question either that it
> is perfectly fine that you enforce your rights under that license.

Great, then we have no objections and agree about this.


greg k-h
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >