mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE:Re: GPL and Nvidia
@ 2003-01-01 18:40 Hell.Surfers
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Hell.Surfers @ 2003-01-01 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: andre, linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 231 bytes --]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it trys to break the GPL apart.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:17:17 -0800 (PST) 	Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3272 bytes --]

From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL and Nvidia
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10212312259460.421-100000@master.linux-ide.org>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
> legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
> irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as

You now may have committed a software crime.
You have taken software you may not be licensed or authorized to have.

> they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
> help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL

Then go beg them for a job, but then again if you knew jack about their
product, you would be squelched by now.

> ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL
> modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl
> code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing
> is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI
> could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source
> drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt
> even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to
> say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch
> is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could
> only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia
> included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc,
> perhaps its time I seeked legal advice.

Yes it is because if I owned Nvidia, I would snatch you into a court of
law so fast for piracy you boots would still be warm while empty.

Your petty rants only add more death nails to Linux in going forward in
the commerial and business model.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2003-01-01 18:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-01 18:40 RE:Re: GPL and Nvidia Hell.Surfers

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®