From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:06:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:06:09 -0500 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:18055 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:06:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? From: Alan Cox To: Paul Jakma Cc: Rik van Riel , Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 02 Jan 2003 01:57:01 +0000 Message-Id: <1041472621.22606.4.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 00:31, Paul Jakma wrote: > So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia > driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia > driver is technically in material breach of GPL. I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not set by the GPL authors