Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

[Bill Huey \]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:22AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but
>     the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political,
>     social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox,
>     Stephen Tweedie, etc...)  
> 
> When you say "Linux" here, do you mean the kernel, or the whole
> GNU/Linux system?  With all due respect, I think you may not have

Linux itself, yes, it's definitely a special project in the context of
GNU and deserve to have it's identity preserved even outside of the
main core of GNU/GPL. It's special case all around.

> answered this question for yourself, because the people that you name
> are people who worked on the kernel, but the success that you talk
> about is the success of the whole system.  (No kernel alone could have
> had this effect.)

Those folks were on the forefront of this and have special historical
status as a result of this.

> Like any community, it contains people with different views.  Nowadays
> many of the people in our community support the open source movement.
> The open source advocates are legitimate members of the community, and
> some have contributed to it.  They have a right to form a movement to
> promote their views, but that movement was started only in 1998, long
> after the community existed.  Their movement did not build the
> community, and it should not be named after them.
 
Yes, but they were on the forefront of this and have special status and
should be held seperate from GNU/GPL itself.

> Speaking of which, your ideas seem to have a lot in common with the
> free software movement.  I wonder if you thought that the open source
> movement was the only one and that we all support it.  (Many
> inaccurate articles give that impression.)  If you read about the free
> software movement, you might decide we are closer to your views.

The difference that respect about this project is that, although it's
has GPL roots, it has been a refactoring foundation for the entire
open source community. The rules were rewritten after the success of
this project. It's not ment to be a disrespect to you and what you've
done certainly, but it's definitely smashed the scale and scope
of free software projects.

Like when Metallica hit the Metal scene in 1984, it was a bit sterile
prior to that. :)

> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and in particular
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for an
> explanation of the difference between the two movements.  We and they
> have similar practices, which is why we and they can work together
> some of the time, but what we say about it is very different from
> what they say.

I'll read it again. :)

bill