NVidia license agreement is not embedded-friendly

whitpa · 12-28-02, 08:25 PM

I'd like to voice my displeasure over a specific clause of the NVidia graphics driver license agreement which is causing me some grief, namely para 2 of 2.1.3:

"No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. "

What I would like to do is distribute select components of the NVIDIA_GLX-1.0-xxxx.tar.gz bundle for use in an embedded thin client system. The embedded system in question (diet-pc.sf.net) runs entirely in RAM using an initrd, and therefore cannot afford to host anything other than absolutely essential runtime components (in this case nvidia_drv.o and possibly libglx.so.1.0.xxxx and libGLcore.so.1.0.xxxx if GL is needed, plus of course the NVdriver/nvidia.o kernel module).

The reason I would like to do this is that the nvidia driver has many useful features that the standard XFree86 4.x nv driver doesn't, such as a fast and reliable YUV XVideo extension, actual *use* of DDC/EDID-probed data, OpenGL, etc.

Although I would otherwise be allowed to do this under the Linux exception clause 2.1.2, the above 2.1.3 clause not only forbids me from doing this, but also forbids any of my clients from following any DIY HowTo I might write.

This seems to me to be counter to the spirit in which the Linux exception clause was written. I have no intention of altering any binaries or omitting a copy of the Nvidia license agreement from my distribution. So where's the harm?

Wolfman [TWP] · 12-29-02, 06:06 AM

This maybe something that you need to discuss with Nvidia directly. I don't think that anyone on this forum will be able to give you any good suggestions on how you will be able to do this.. Unless someone from Nvidia is monitoring this forum that is...

crimsun · 12-29-02, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolfman [TWP]
This maybe something that you need to discuss with Nvidia directly. I don't think that anyone on this forum will be able to give you any good suggestions on how you will be able to do this.. Unless someone from Nvidia is monitoring this forum that is...

I concur, this issue is better taken up with Nvidia legal directly. There should be legal contact information in the footer of Nvidia's webpages.

whitpa · 12-29-02, 05:06 PM

I thought that might be your response. The reason that I posted here first is because the NVidia driver README is adamant that I do so before trying any other POC.

I can find no specific legal point of contact, only info@nvidia.com and linux-bugs@nvidia.com, or snail mail to the corporate office. I don't want to make a huge issue out of this; like I said, I just want to voice my displeasure, and hope that someone from NVidia who has some idea what Linux is might be listening.

12-28-02, 08:25 PM	#1
whitpa Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 2	NVidia license agreement is not embedded-friendly I'd like to voice my displeasure over a specific clause of the NVidia graphics driver license agreement which is causing me some grief, namely para 2 of 2.1.3: "No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. " What I would like to do is distribute select components of the NVIDIA_GLX-1.0-xxxx.tar.gz bundle for use in an embedded thin client system. The embedded system in question (diet-pc.sf.net) runs entirely in RAM using an initrd, and therefore cannot afford to host anything other than absolutely essential runtime components (in this case nvidia_drv.o and possibly libglx.so.1.0.xxxx and libGLcore.so.1.0.xxxx if GL is needed, plus of course the NVdriver/nvidia.o kernel module). The reason I would like to do this is that the nvidia driver has many useful features that the standard XFree86 4.x nv driver doesn't, such as a fast and reliable YUV XVideo extension, actual use of DDC/EDID-probed data, OpenGL, etc. Although I would otherwise be allowed to do this under the Linux exception clause 2.1.2, the above 2.1.3 clause not only forbids me from doing this, but also forbids any of my clients from following any DIY HowTo I might write. This seems to me to be counter to the spirit in which the Linux exception clause was written. I have no intention of altering any binaries or omitting a copy of the Nvidia license agreement from my distribution. So where's the harm?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5	Ferianto85	NVIDIA Linux	0	05-18-12 08:35 PM
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability	ViN86	Rumor Mill	6	05-09-12 04:48 PM
rh7.3 and nvidia	vcrispo	NVIDIA Linux	11	07-31-02 08:57 PM

12-29-02, 06:06 AM	#2
Wolfman [TWP] Geforce 8800 GTS 512 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 396	This maybe something that you need to discuss with Nvidia directly. I don't think that anyone on this forum will be able to give you any good suggestions on how you will be able to do this.. Unless someone from Nvidia is monitoring this forum that is...

12-29-02, 05:06 PM	#4
whitpa Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 2	I thought that might be your response. The reason that I posted here first is because the NVidia driver README is adamant that I do so before trying any other POC. I can find no specific legal point of contact, only info@nvidia.com and linux-bugs@nvidia.com, or snail mail to the corporate office. I don't want to make a huge issue out of this; like I said, I just want to voice my displeasure, and hope that someone from NVidia who has some idea what Linux is might be listening.