Re: Honest does not pay here ...

[David van Hoose]

Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> "Adam J. Richter" <[e-mail]> 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