My thanks to alan for defending open source, 1000 kudos to him and the other sane developers in the kernel, now for the the tards blaming them !!!!this is not their fault!!!! is a legal issue since in the COPYING files of the kernel is !!!!VERY CLEARLY SPECIFIED THE LICENSE AND RESPECTIVE EXCEPTIONS!!!! and that cannot be changed without the consent of every copyright holder[including the dead ones], so since linux kernel is gpl2 since 2 decades ago and is nearly impossible to change that now they have to adjust their blob or simply don't support optimus on linux and the same applies to fglrx or any other blob.

this time michael is in the wrong since he implies alan cox is stoping nvidia when he is only properly reporting the license issue and stating that in the hypothetical case of a full kernel license change he won't approve it for his code and this position is supported by many other kernel devs that don't consider change the license in their code been good for them[which is their right not your to criticize].

nvidia is trying to get some legal evidence in case of a trial that this devs approved their violations to the license so the can slip throught it undamaged in the eventual case of a litigation for infrigement, this is not a technical issue or a kernel dev being grumpy is just nvidia trying to find a grey area in the license to avoid damages

P.D for the nvidia trolls
* is not possible to change the kernel license in a reasonable timeframe [optimus will be long gone in the past by then], again read the frigging copying
* no change the license in the header probably won't work either read the copying, again read the frigging copying
* alan cox can be hired by nvidia and forced with a gun to accept the patch and still won't be legal, again read the frigging copying
* no not even linus can change the kernel license before you unborn son became a grandpa, again read the frigging copying