Vendor only distributable packages - was " Kernel 2059 from Dave Jones fixes nvidia.ko loading"
Arjan van de Ven
arjan at fenrus.demon.nl
Thu Mar 23 10:27:10 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 17:55 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:23 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 16:37 -0600, John Morris wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 09:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > > in some jurisdictions there is a legal precedent for linking to
> > > > "illegal" content to be just as bad as distributing it. Now I'm not
> > > > saying that the flash plugin is illegal (it's not afaik) but the
> > > > parallel is enough to scare many lawyers ;)
> > >
> > > I really doubt there could be legal implications to pointing to an ftp
> > > site. Even if they prefer people go to the webpage there has been
> > > enough cases now about linking to pretty much settle that issue.
> > >
> > > But has anyone at RH tried asking for permission? Including preset repo
> > > lines for livna is right out, both legally and morally for the mission
> > > of Fedora. But what about the idea of a legal but non-free catagory for
> > > Flash, Acrobat, Nvidia, ATI, etc?
> > what makes you think NVidia and ATI are legal?
> Since the vendor(s) makes them available for free download I would guess
> there is no question of legality here.
so if I put up a copy of The Matrix DVD for free download there is no
question of legality either?
(hint: not all the code that created the nvidia .ko file is owned by
NVidia, some of it comes from the kernel. Same and even more so for ATI)
More information about the fedora-test-list