policy on GPL'd drivers?

[Marcin Dalecki]

David Leimbach wrote:
>  
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 10:40AM, Alexander Kabaev <ak03 at gte.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:32:42 -0500
>>David Leimbach <leimy2k at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ugh... the network driver portion of the nforce drivers is *not*
>>> GPL'd but it
>>>has a linux only and anti-reverse engineeing clause.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>Then using the diver on FreeBSD will be a NVidia's license violation,
>>wouldn't it? One more reason to keep it out of the tree.
> 
> 
> Just the network driver... the audio driver in the tarball is still GPL'd.
> 
> Either which way I doubt either driver will go into the tree.  I don't see
> any good reason to stick any of it in the kernel unless its absolutely 
> necessary.
> 
> I am not a religious person when it comes to licensing.  I just don't like
> GPL style restrictions.

Did you ever ask NVidia about they position on this?
Perhaps they are more flexible then you may think and this
whole discussion is simply pointless.