Re: GPL and Nvidia

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [e-mail] wrote:

> lets see, In Britain we dont have "lawyers" we have solicitors, "no
> legal ground" yes I do have legal ground, having the hardware is
> irrelevent, I have the drivers, the "improperly" licensed drivers as

You now may have committed a software crime.
You have taken software you may not be licensed or authorized to have.

> they are, I dont discriminate againtst nvidia users, I am unhappy I cant
> help them with those modules, they include GPL routines as well as LGPL

Then go beg them for a job, but then again if you knew jack about their
product, you would be squelched by now.

> ones, so that part of the argument is irrelevent, rejecting non-GPL/LGPL
> modules is impossible because all modules are GPL (they contain gpl
> code, to work)but some (illegally) are distributed incorrectly, Nothing
> is hazy, I rather enjoy using 486s, Nvidia can open source because ATI
> could reverse engineer anyway, something I may do to get open source
> drivers released, something I HAVE just done with v.90, Nvidia doesnt
> even have decent proprietary texture compression, ive never got them to
> say what company made it, if its not just another excuse at all. A patch
> is derived work, Linux isnt crippled without Nvidia, and Linus could
> only switch to LGPL if it was still only his own work, when Nvidia
> included GPLd files it was a "linked file" and I didnt mention /proc,
> perhaps its time I seeked legal advice.

Yes it is because if I owned Nvidia, I would snatch you into a court of
law so fast for piracy you boots would still be warm while empty.

Your petty rants only add more death nails to Linux in going forward in
the commerial and business model.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group