Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Keynoting LinuxCon, Continues Talking Up Linux/OSS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    The real meat of NVIDIA's blob is the userspace blob that does what Mesa does for open drivers (providing OpenGL and other APIs to userspace), not the hardware driver that exposes the hardware at a low level.
    This blob only interfaces with the hardware driver, so it can be (and is) shipped as a blob without violating anything.
    So NVIDIA has multiple layers of protection to cover their ass from the GPL.

    Canonical is actually shipping ZFS as a complied module and argues there is no problem as it ZFS isn't a derivative work. I guess we'll wait and see if kernel devs do anything about it.

    Oracle should have no problem as Canonical isn't claiming that they're relicensing ZFS.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Inopia View Post
      So NVIDIA has multiple layers of protection to cover their ass from the GPL.
      Yep. That same trickery has to be done on any project that mixes closed source and GPL, or the ones making the GPL project can start a legal battle.
      That's why most companies go with permissive licenses unless they are linux-only companies (like RedHat or SUSE), and have nothing to fear.

      Canonical is actually shipping ZFS as a complied module and argues there is no problem as it ZFS isn't a derivative work. I guess we'll wait and see if kernel devs do anything about it.
      kernel devs don't care. It's the companies that have contributed to kernel development that could go omnomnomnomnom on anyone that uses it if they feel like it would provide a benefit.

      Given that Canonical is:
      -always broke (never made a profit)
      -a MS sockpuppet (this is obvious to everyone)

      the risk of such legal issues are limited, there is little money to be had, and there is the risk of waking a giant on the sidelines.

      Oracle should have no problem as Canonical isn't claiming that they're relicensing ZFS.
      The violation is on the GPL side, ZFS license isn't broken.

      That said, Oracle does contribute to linux kernel development, so yeah they or anyone else can still pull an omnomnomnomnom like Oracle pulled with Google about Android Java apis. Did they do it straight away?

      Nope.

      They waited until it was the right time before attacking.

      Don't think that because companies cooperate on Linux they have any kind of morals. If they see profit in a legal battle, they will start it.

      Comment

      Working...
      X