GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 5:10 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
In reply to: GPL not legally vetted? by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Kuhn: Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

> But the thing they would do, if they really wanted strong copyleft, is to
> sue nVIDIA for release of its source code, claiming it's a derivative work

So not suing over something automatically means that you "believe that behavior is acceptable"? Since you're the "expert," can I quote you on that?

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 6:05 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

Note that I said all of this against the background of vonbrand claiming that Red Hat's livelihood depends on this. If it livelihood depended on strong copyleft for Linux, they would definitely fight to have closed source drivers by such a major player declared illegal. They might not care about little or subtle violations, but again, if (as vonbrand claims) this was about their livelihood, they would take action.

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 15:01 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

There's a certain irony in your words here. Vonbrand didn't claim Red Hat's livelihood depends on Red Hat suing Nvidia. Your entire position is that litigation is evidence that you support, or do not support, positions. Surely your "Twittersation" -- your words -- clears all of this up.

I keep mentioning the Nouveau project because it's a concrete position taken by Red Hat with regard to Nvidia drivers. Yet you mentioned Nvidia in an attempt to spread misinformation. You've been caught.