Kernel 2054 breaks nvidia.ko loading

Gilboa Davara gilboad at
Fri Mar 17 20:07:43 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 19:25 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Other then that, I'm being employed write a certain kernel level
> > services that are to be deployed on RHEL.
> > Due to specific reasons I cannot disclose (and as a matter of law) my
> > company cannot release the code under GPL (though I might get a
> > permission to release small unrelated parts of it). If indeed you
> > represent the official Linux-kernel-dev-line, my employer should halt
> > all Linux development and switch to BSD/Solaris/what-ever, right?
> your companies lawyers should have read the GPL before, read
> COPYING.modules from the RHEL4 kernel tree (or RHEL3) which has Linus'
> position on this. And question themselves how on earth they can obey by
> both clause 2 and clause 3 of the GPL... (for example: if you're going
> to ship RHEL4 or the kernel together with your module, how on earth can
> you reasonably argue that the compiled module is independent of the
> kernel as clause 2 demands) And how much they like that you are
> including kernel code into the binary you're going to distribute (via
> the headers for example). It's your companies lawyers that need to
> decide that, because it's their responsibility to make sure your company
> obeys the law, and to defend it in court if they get chalanged.

I'm not looking to start a GPL flame-war. Far from it.
My company's layers have vent through the GPL and it's up for them to
decide which parts of the code must be released.
I assume that all the parts that interface directly with the kernel
source/headers will be released as required.

BTW, last time I checked, nVidia is doing exactly the same. All the
kernel dependent code is open and released to the public while all the
kernel in-dependent is closed.

> If that means that they conclude the same as the lawyers I talked to
> ("it can't be done except in <totally unrealistic way>") and if that
> means that the answer then is "then we don't do a Linux driver", then
> you have the answer...

I fear that this view will demolish the fledgling Linux ecosystem that
is slowly being built.
Without high performance 3D card and drivers the chances of Linux
gaining market share on Vista are a pipe-dream. Heck, using open source
drivers only I doubt that 10% of the users here will be able to run
Even worse, with the kernel devs going into RMS mode, large Enterprise
companies will shy away from using Linux and go back to Microsoft.
Guess Microsoft needn't worry about Linux; we are perfectly capable of
finding fresh new ways to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the "Software must be GPL'ed" view..
In a perfect world I'd be marching right beside.
Problem is, in a perfect world you don't have El-Quida people sifting
through your code, trying to find ways to disable a nuclear reactor
emergency coolers and/or missile guidance system.

Back to the original subject: I shelled out 400$ for my GF6800GT card
and I'm willing to spend twice that amount on a fully open graphics card
that will perform the same. Can you offer me such as option?


More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list