Luis Chamberlain sent out the modules changes today for the Linux 6.6 merge window. Most notable with the modules update is a change that better builds up the defenses against NVIDIA’s proprietary kernel driver from using GPL-only symbols. Or in other words, bits that only true open-source drivers should be utilizing and not proprietary kernel drivers like NVIDIA’s default Linux driver in respecting the original kernel code author’s intent.
Back in 2020 when the original defense was added, NVIDIA recommended avoiding the Linux 5.9 for the time being. They ended up having a supported driver several weeks later. It will be interesting to see this time how long Linux 6.6+ thwarts their kernel driver.
As the commenter stated, it is a copyright issue. Nvidia is not allowed to use this code in a proprietary driver.
Which they technically didn’t. I’m sure Nvidia has a legal team that vetted their solution, they certainly have the money for it. At this point the “protection” against the proprietary driver is just anti-consumer.
And I’m sure Nvidia’s legal team knows that Linux is not going to take them to court for this because it isn’t worth it. Nvidia absolutely did violate the GPL, but they have the funds to avoid any legal trouble, hence why Linux goes this other router. I don’t see how this is anti-consumer, it will not significantly effect the consumer. Nvidia will simply have to update their driver like they did when these protections were first implemented.
I don’t see how the copyright mechanism works here. The GPL has rules about linking to GPL code, enforced by the notion that the linked binary is a protected derivative work. Going and finding out where in memory some functions are and jumping to them is not going to create a derivative work.
The Linux devs just have a rule about who they want to call these symbols and are trying to enforce it themselves.
You not seeing how this violates the copyright does not mean you are correct
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
Had this clause been found enforceable in any court case? (I’m not saying it hasn’t been - I don’t know.)
I don’t know if there has been a specific case surrounding a shim like Nvidia is using, but since it is in the license it should fall under a simple copyright violation.
Wouldn’t that automatically make their code GPL?
No it would just make Nvidia guilty of copyright infringement
If they want to use that code legally they should make their code GPL but i doubt there proprietary code gets automatically overrules. I wish it did.
I do wonder what would happen if someone would hack and leak Nvidia’s code under the defense that they thought Nvidia to be operating legally therefor assuming there code is GPL, I presume Nvidia would need to officially confess their crime as a legal defense that they never ment to open source their own code.
Free Software Foundation, Inc. Vs Cisco Systems Inc. disagrees. The FSF sued Linksys for violating the license for GCC, libc etc.
And they were forced in court to release all their WRT stuff under GPL, which is how OpenWRT got its start.
Just the idea of nvidia being forced to open source there drivers makes me drool in sweet winners justice.
But realistically, Nvidia feels like one of the more powerful corporations around do we stand a chance? I do hope FSF tries regardless.
Linksys was part of Cisco. They had veryy deep pockets, but the FSF & SFC prevailed regardless.
I doubt the FSF or SFC will go after Nvidia, this has been a long standing issue and I haven’t heard about any lawsuits being brought because of it, even before Nvidia had more money than God.
They weren’t forced to do it. They did it as part of a settlement. The outcome if they had gone to trial and lost could well have been different.
(Also how do you even violate the license for gcc while making a router?)
I don’t remember the details but a lot centered around the build system IIRC.
There are lots of problems here. First, if you have to “hack” something to get the code, then it likely invalidates your own defense that you thought you were allowed to release it. Second, even if you can prove that nVidia knows that they should have to GPL their code, you still have no legal right to hack something to get it. If the hacking is illegal, then it’s illegal, even if it’s done to enable an otherwise legal activity.