Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:24:15 +0200 From: Marcin Dalecki <mdcki@gmx.net> To: David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? Message-ID: <3ED3E58F.9030904@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <6855087.1054050580287.JavaMail.leimy2k@mac.com> References: <6855087.1054050580287.JavaMail.leimy2k@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Leimbach wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 10:40AM, Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com> wrote: > > >>On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:32:42 -0500 >>David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Ugh... the network driver portion of the nforce drivers is *not* >>> GPL'd but it >>>has a linux only and anti-reverse engineeing clause. >>> >>>Dave >> >>Then using the diver on FreeBSD will be a NVidia's license violation, >>wouldn't it? One more reason to keep it out of the tree. > > > Just the network driver... the audio driver in the tarball is still GPL'd. > > Either which way I doubt either driver will go into the tree. I don't see > any good reason to stick any of it in the kernel unless its absolutely > necessary. > > I am not a religious person when it comes to licensing. I just don't like > GPL style restrictions. Did you ever ask NVidia about they position on this? Perhaps they are more flexible then you may think and this whole discussion is simply pointless.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED3E58F.9030904>