[ezoe]

I was thinking about this issue on binary blob driver like nvidia's.

GPL is a clever hack of copyright law. It grant derivative works a copyright permission under the condition of accepting the same license.

Now, Windows kernel and Nvidia's binary blob driver exist without relying on Linux kernel at all. How could they be considered as a derivative work in terms of copyright law? Since GPLv2 relies on copyright law, it has no effect on situation where copyright law doesn't allow exclusive right.

For Nvidia's driver, Nvidia released a thin shim wrapper code as GPL which interface between Linux API and Nvidia binary blob driver API. But the core Nvidia binary blob driver existed independently from Linux kernel, it can't be a derivative work of Linux kernel.

For WSL2 case, Microsoft may take the same approach. They may release a thin shim wrapper which interface Linux kernel and Windows as GPL. But Windows kernel itself cannot be a derivative work of Linux kernel if it's separated well.

At least, that's my conclusion. I'm not a lawyer.

[xorcist]

> But the core Nvidia binary blob driver existed independently from Linux kernel, it can't be a derivative work of Linux kernel.

Many kernel developers are of a different opinion, and consider Nvidia in breach of their license. The fact that nobody has sued does not mean that they are in the clear. Don't consider the use of a thin shim to be some sort of license firewall.

Anyone other than a select few multinationals probably shouldn't consider legal disagreements with their partners a valid business strategy.