Slashdot Mirror
Linux: the GPL and Binary Modules
An anonymous reader writes "When first made available in September of 1991, the Linux kernel source code was released under a very restrictive non-GPL license requiring that the source code must always be available, and that no money could be made off of it. Several months later Linus changed the copyright to the GPL, or GNU General Public License, under which the kernel source code has remained ever since. Thanks to the GPL, any source code derived from the Linux kernel source code must also be freely released under the GPL. This has led many to question the legality of 'binary only' kernel modules, for which no source code is released. Linux creator Linus Torvalds talks about this issue in a recent thread on the lkml."
lick my sweaty balls asswipe!
And here's an old article from about 1992 with an Interterview with Mr. Linux which touches on this same issue. Quite an interesting and thought provoking read.
I told you to stop shouting obscenities both on Slashdot and in the Senate!
PS. Remember to return those wine bottles.
"Also, does the driver become a derived work if the person who writes it initially does so to get some hardware working on his Linux box, rather than his other box which runs ObsureOS which also implements this standard device driver interface but the person hasn't installed the hardware on that machine yet?"
Listen to me. That should have been at least two sentences. If you want me to help you answer your question, please use punctuation. UmmKay ?
You are a weasel.
this book covers GPL licensing issues quite well...
I'm not sure how this is +5 informative, it's obvious you missed the point.
The whole debate is about the *definition* of what is derivation and what is not; it's a big grey line.
RTFA!
Wow. It's just amazing to me how the Linux community supports the wholesale theft of SCO's intellectual property, while it cries foul when a hardware vendor decides not to submit source code along with a driver. Talk about a double standard.
You obviously got no clue what you are talking about.
;)), and they did put a *load* of effort in making drivers compatible, and
First, M$ might not make very secure software, but they sure got a load of
talented people working there, and even if their software is crap they know how
to do some things right, the NT kernel is not all that bad(after all, it's just
VMS
they had the src for all the OSes they wanted to make compatible, and they
still failed miserably, other efforts by a bunch of amateur kids aren't going
to work much better(and if you do some research, you will find that some other
people have tried, and failed too).
And that is for a very simple reasons, drivers and kernel modules, by
definition are *very* tied to the underlying kernel architecture, that you
really want to be able to change, and when you change that, you will need to
change the interface to it, and you will break code that uses that interface,
and if you only got a binary you are in a world of shit.
And yes, I *really* need to know how to interface with my hardware, and no,
adding a layer of proprietary software on top of proprietary hardware is *not*
OK, for *many* reasons, for example security, stability, CPU and OS
portability, etc...
There is *no* excuse for not releasing the necessary specs for hardware, the
interfaces to them are meaningless to other hardware vendors, and the only
reasons hw vendors don't release them are: ignorance; to keep more control over
the (l)users and make them more dependant(eg., force upgrades by removing
support for old hardware...), and to hide embarrassing bugs in their
hardware(or advertise fake features that are implemented in software, eg.,
winmodems, winprinters, etc.)
In all cases specs are withheld to screw the user, and nothing else, which is
*exactly* what Open Source tries to avoid.
You have to remember that in Open Source, we are all the developers, and M$ got
access to the src of all their drivers(their license for hardware vendors force
them to give the src to M$), and we at the very least need the same.
Best wishes
uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
<irony>
Ah look, it's our friend from the nvnews forum. Didn't you write there a few months ago that you thought open source drivers can't be anything but sh*tty? Glad to see you around here, matey.
</irony>
I think someone already pointed out 5 months ago that the drivers no longer contain that code. Of course I have no idea if that's true. What I can say is that many people asked either for the source to be released or for specifications of the hardware so that open source drivers could be made. That wouldn't concern stuff like your S3TC texture compression I'd say.
You've been debunking all those requests with your it-all-works-on-my-pc attitude, blissfully unaware of the possibility that other users might have other experiences. In fact, one gets the impression from your posts that you're an opponent of Open Source and that you think that anything free (as in speech) has to suck. I wonder, why are you not using Windows then? NVidia's drivers work beautifully there (for the most part) and you don't have to hear those Open-Source-The-Drivers requests anymore.
And get that into your head: You're not the measure of everything, and other people might have different requirements than you. Now kindly go troll someplace else.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?