On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:04 +1000 Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights holders concerned.
Alan please stick with the facts. This isn't a relicense of anything.
In your opinion. Are you a qualified IP attorney - NO. Are you my lawyer
- NO. Does my laywer disagree with you - YES.
Okay then we should remove this code from the kernel forthwith, as I showed it was illegally relicensed previously in your lawyers opinion.
That would not be the same question I asked my lawyer.
Anyway I refer you to the Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1.
Anything Signed off was submitted under the GPL and so is usable as part of a GPL derived work, but not as part of a non GPL derived work. Thus Nouveau can happily use it for example. Simples.
And as I said before if Nvidia believe the _GPL makes no difference and their work is not derivative then it's clearly within their power to just ignore it, at which point *they* take the risk on their own.
From the fact this patch keeps getting resubmitted despite repeated objection I deduce they are in fact of the view it does matter and that therefore it is a licensing change and they are scared of the consequences of ignoring it.
Alan