PCM+ Agent with ONE zl Module Open Source Licenses 2010-01

/usr/share/doc/nvidia-177-modaliases/copyright
949
/usr/share/doc/nvidia-177-modaliases/copyright
This package was debianized by Randall Donald <[e-mail]> on
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:40:05 -0800.
It was downloaded from
ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/177.80/NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-177.80-
pkg2.run
Upstream Author: NVIDIA <[e-mail]>
Copyright:
First a note from the README file
Q: Why does NVIDIA not provide rpms anymore?
A: Not every Linux distribution uses rpm, and NVIDIA wanted a single
solution that would work across all Linux distributions. As indicated
in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions are welcome to
repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in whatever package
format they wish.
Furthermore, an email from NVIDIA:
Greetings, Randall! Comments below:
On 30 Jul 2003, Randall Donald wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
>
> My name is Randall Donald and I am the maintainer for the Debian
> downloader packages nvidia-glx-src and nvidia-kernel-src.
> As stated in your license and the README file
> ( "As indicated in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions
> are welcome to repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in
> whatever package format they wish." )
> I wish to include packages containing the Linux driver files in the Debian
archive.
> I'd like to know if it is legally permitted to distribute binary kernel modules
> compiled from the NVIDIA kernel module source and Debian kernel headers.
This is fine; thanks for asking.
> I am also wondering if the "No Separation of Components" clause
> ( 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.) applies to splitting the glx driver and kernel module source into
> multiple binary packages.
This is also fine. I believe this section of the license was
intended to prevent users from doing things like using our Windows
control panel with a competitor's display driver (that's not actually
possible, but you get the idea...). In the case of separating the
driver into a glx package and a kernel package (like we used to
do ourselves), this is simply a packaging issue; of course users