Re: Open/Closed
"Distribution is the constraint which you are, can only presume purposefully, ignoring."
I am well aware that this would only apply if it is distributed. I am quite at liberty to take GPL code, modify it, mash it up with any other code I would like, and keep it for myself. However, if I (or anyone else) distribute it, this must be done under a GPL compatible license (if it counts as a derived work). I cannot distribute a derived work (to anyone), as a binary or as source code, unless it is under a GPL compatible license. If the nVidia drivers were classed as a derived work, they would not be allowed to distribute a binary driver under an incompatible license. It doesn't matter that they own the copyright: If it's derived, it's covered, if not, it's not.
Therefore, unless I am missing something (and I have done a lot of research on the GPL in the past), RMS and FSF are making a distinction that a ZoL binary module is a derived work, and yet for some reason nVidia's (and others') modules aren't. This is the distinction I would like to understand.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
