🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> writes:

]On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:40:59 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:

]> So, I add a module to the kernel, and I put a restrictive license on
]> that module. I can therefor license the whole kernel under a more
]> restrictive license? No. That kernel as a whole is a derivative work,
]> just as the distribution as a whole is a derivative work, and as a
]> derivative work of a GPL licensed work, it must also be released under
]> the GPL.

]If a CD contains piece #1 (GPL) and piece #2 (non-GPL), then you can
]release the CD as non-GPL.  However, piece #1 remains GPL.

Maybe. Depends on what the CD contains.


]I haven't looked into it in detail, but aren't Nvidia's binary-only
]drivers a concrete example of this?  I guess they must be non-GPL,
]since they're "binary-only"; but linking them to the kernel does not
]magically un-GPL the kernel.  If you don't agree to Nvidia's terms,
]then you just unlink the drivers from the kernel and replace them
]with something else.

This is why the NVIDIA drivers are not included in the kernel. By the
GPL on the kernel, any derived work, which the kernel with the NVIDIA
drivers installed is, must be released under GPL. The NVIDIA drivers
however have a license which does not allow this. Thus they cannot be
released together with the kernel as one work, since the licenses are
mutually contradictory. 
You of course can link them together since the GPL controls copying not
use. Thus you can make your own copy of the kernel for you r use. You
can get a copy of the nvidia driver for your use. You can link them as
you use them. But you cannot release them together to someone else.