Some people did never really read the GPL and hence do not understand that distributing closed-source components with a Linux distro simply is not illegal for as long as those closed-source components do not utilise GPL code in any way or form. Therefore as far as I can tell there simply are no "violations" of GPL in Mint (at least not in this context); other distributions are also shipping closed source components galore.Husse wrote: some people are irritated because of alleged violaitons to the GPL by Mint.
clem wrote:Hi Husse,
There's a huge difference between distributing closed-source software on a CD and using GPL source code in a binary closed-source program.
We might "piss of" some purists by including some proprietary software in our distribution... but to be honest:
- extremists tend to be pissed off pretty easily anyway.
- people who are serious about the GPL usually "do" read the GPL.
You should read it then so you really understand what is being talked about and why certain things do violate the GPL while others don't.Sasquatch wrote: I must also confess my ignorance as to the contents of the GPL.
Linus released his work in the middle of various UNIX wars and at the time of the famous "Berkeley University vs. AT&T" lawsuit. Hence he probably thought it would be best to put his stuff under the GPL which would prevent his code becoming "closed source" all of a sudden because someone claimed to have the rights on it (precisely what happened between "Berkeley vs. AT&T" when AT&T all of a sudden claimed: "All your code belong to us!" ... they were proven wrong though, but nevertheless this was quite damaging to UNIX back then ...)Sasquatch wrote: I know Linus got it only to prevent others from putting his free idea under a more restrictive license and effectively killing the free software in the womb.
What precisely are you talking about ???? No kernel developer I know or ever heard of ever tried that. Can you please explain?Sasquatch wrote: For the kernel developers to even consider making it impossible to fully utilize my computer without paying them a license fee is appalling.
See above. And please see this previous posting:Sasquatch wrote: At this moment, the drivers for my card are available free from Nvidia, so I do not understand the conflict with the GPL.
Precisely because people would still buy their hardware products.Sasquatch wrote: Including free software does not rob the company of income.
You are wrong. There is a perfectly legal patent on the wheel which is even still valid!Sasquatch wrote: Wonder who held the patent on the Wheel? Good thing it's expired by now.
Bingo! But then again, this is precisely what many people don't understand and what the guy who opened this thread did not understand. He thought Mint is violating the GPL because it is shipping MP3 and DVD codecs and such ... which is total BS and just proves he got himself agitated over something he did not even know anything about.Fragadelic wrote:This has never gone to court and until it goes to court and is proven one way or another, this will, as Linus himself has said, remain a gray area.
Yes, but if people like Greg Hartmann get it their way then it might become illegal to even produce such drivers. You as a user you cannot install a driver if you cannot download it first ...TwistedLincoln wrote:So it will always be okay to install and use proprietary kernel modules. So regardless of how the Nvidia driver works, it will always be okay for the end-user to install and use it.
I read somewhere online (no idea where, I do entirely too much reading) that developers where thinking of putting code into the kernel to prevent such programs from connecting. That would mean that I could not get drivers for my cards unless they were approved by those developers, which I'm sure would involve some sort of fee somewhere even if it was paid by the driver builder and added into the price. If I misunderstood, it wouldn't be the first time.scorp123 wrote:hat precisely are you talking about ???? Confused Shocked No kernel developer I know or ever heard of ever tried that. Shocked Can you please explain? Confused
Not to pick nits, but it's only "legal" because it has yet to be challenged. It definitely proves the patent system is a joke.scorp123 wrote: You are wrong. There is a perfectly legal patent on the wheel which is even still valid!
True.Sasquatch wrote: I read somewhere online (no idea where, I do entirely too much reading) that developers where thinking of putting code into the kernel to prevent such programs from connecting.
Not true!!! Those drivers would simply be blocked. End of the story. You cannot buy "portions" of the Linux kernel from anyone. And that's exactly what you suggest here. This is simply not possible.Sasquatch wrote: That would mean that I could not get drivers for my cards unless they were approved by those developers, which I'm sure would involve some sort of fee somewhere
Which means that the drivers in question have to be released under the GPL too. Only GPL code may link to GPL code without being considered illegal. End of the story. The purpose with such measures is to coerce hardware vendors to open up their specifications and to release the source code of the drivers. No kernel developer is after your moneySasquatch wrote: That would mean that I could not get drivers for my cards unless they were approved by those developers,
You are confusing a lot of things hereSasquatch wrote: which I'm sure would involve some sort of fee somewhere even if it was paid by the driver builder and added into the price.
No problemscorp123 wrote: If I misunderstood, it wouldn't be the first time.
Automated reverse-engineering? Now there's an idea ....scorp123 wrote: Is it possible to write a script that could figure out the inner workings of a device and write a driver for it? You could patent that and make a fortune!
Users browsing this forum: killer de bug and 6 guests