Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com> writes:
>
>
>> I believe that the illegality of proprietary kernel modules
>>has resulting in more GPL-compatible kernel code than without such
>>a restriction.
>
>
> What people like you don't understand is, that there no such thing as
> a "illegal proprietary kernel module" according to the GPL.
>
> There is only an "illegal distribution of a proprietary binary kernel
> module with the linux kernel" under the GPL.
>
> If Andres' customers are happy with getting a binary only module for
> use with their kernel, there is no violation of the GPL by Andre.
>
> Regards
> Henning (writing this on a computer with the nvidia
> module loaded and happy about it. And
> completely within the boundaries of the
> GPL. No matter what RMS says).
Binary-only drivers are great as long as they work. Every such driver I
have used so far has worked perfectly.
I have only one problem with NVidia's driver: It refuses to compile
under 2.5.54 which requires me use X's nv driver or use 2.4.21 for KDE.
Anyone know how to get around that? :-)
-David
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:29 EST