Slashdot Mirror
Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL
AlanS2002 writes "The Kororaa Project, a pre-configured binary install method for Gentoo Linux which bundles nVidia's and ATI binary drivers in its Kororaa Xgl Live CD , has put its Live CD on hold after being accused of violating the GPL. The issue appears to be the distribution of the Linux Kernel and nVidia's/ATI binary drivers together. When the binary drivers are built the GPL'ed code is included in the binary result, which is a violation."
To avoid the GPL. I thought it was supposed to make things simpler, not have all of these caveats and 'gotchas'. I understand the next version of the GPL is supposed to eliminate these, but then there's the problem with dealing with multiple versions of the GPL.
I wonder if we're going to start getting stories on "Random Joe Programmer Violates the MS EULA".
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
This is one example of why the GPL is a terrible license. People are trying to add useful things to the Linux kernel so more people use it and your license is restricting it. Use a BSD style license if you want to distribute your code open source.
didn't see this coming?
Obviously they are violating the GPL. They are providing binary-only drivers compiled with a crapload of GPL'd stuff of which the major thing is going to be the Linux kernel. There is no question about this.
Tainting the kernel makes it non-compatible with the gpl. This is not normally a problem on your home-system, but if you redistribute the tainted kernel you violate the gpl. Whats the big deal? just remove the evil binary-only drivers and all is well.
or perhaps im wrong, what do I know, anyway?
couldn't they just load it as a module?
GPL shooting the "good guys" this time. Nevertheless if the open source community will not obey the rules no one will.
Fortunately there are many ways for them to exit this situation, and I hope everything will be cleared soon.
I always thought it was ok as long as they provided everything necessary to build the CD on your own, IE all of the GPL code that was used and which non-GPL packages (the nVidia and ATI drivers) were used.
If anything I would have expected this to be a violation of nVidia and ATI's copyright, distributing their drivers rather than sending people to their respective websites to download.
The drivers aren't GPL though and they don't include GPL code. They merely are compatible with GPL code. This is like saying my source files are GPLed because GCC can parse them. Or this webpage is MPLed because Mozilla can read it, etc...
Just because the kernel can load your module doesn't mean your modules is GPLed. The way I understand the GPL is anything you derive from GPL code must be open source and what not. The drivers are proprietary and just happen to be compatible with GPL code.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Aggregation of components is not the same think as linking, the FSF is totally clear about that. So both the GPL code and the binary code can be present together on the same medium, not linked.
It's only when the CD is booted and the drivers loaded that a runtime image containing the binary modules linked with the kernel is created, and not before.
Distributing an aggregation is perfectly legit, according to the guidelines for GPL v2. (Dunno about v3).
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Is there any basis in the copyright law for the claim that bundling binary drivers in the same binary
as a GPL kernel is copyright violation, while having them as separate downloads is OK ?
This seems like a very naive interpretation of the "derived work". Are there any laws or precedents
that support it ?
...on who sent the email as to whether or not this is truly a significant event. While the person emailing may have a point (IANAL, so I dunno, the devil is in the messy details), it's a little melodramatic to make a big fuss out of this unless the person making the complaint is a copyright holder in the kernel and is issuing a cease and desist.
How badly do we want those drivers? If ATI/NVidia doesn't care, should we? After all, the fact is that the bundling in the binary result is the only violation, and the source is readily available, so it's not like we don't have access to source that we could compile without the drivers if we so choose... or am I missing something?
Distro.
I'm not sure why the Solaris distros haven't been shut down for similar reasons.
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki
Nexenta and their apt repository of software some of which must conflict with the Solaris kernel.
I was very tempted to start experimenting with an OpenSolaris, but there appears to be some license incompatibilities.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Here is one of the most impressive example of linux in action, the koraraa live cd, which literally blew me away with it's 3d-accelerated UI, being put on hold due to the "open-source spirit".
Maybe if it was easier to install video drivers in linux in the first place that they could be made "reasonably independant of each other". How the hell are you supposed to make a live cd that seperates the video drivers from the rest of the OS ? What's more important to linux, the "open-source spirit" that prevents you from distributing one hell of an impressive Live CD, or a wider adoption of linux due to it's advanced technology (windows won't have a fully 3d accelerated UI untill some time next year, linux beat them to it).
Seriously does anyone except open-souce zealots (who are preventing a wider adoption of linux), really care that these drivers are not open-source. Companies like ATI and Nvidia basically survive on their trade-secrets and it would not be reasonable to ask either of these companies to put their IP in jeapordy just so we could have a fully open-source video drivers. We should be grateful they provide closed-source drivers to us AT ALL.
Just when I thought linux was about to blow away Windows this happens.. it's a real sagme. The keroraa liveCD was one of the best examples of a beautiful looking linux.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
After agreeing to provide the Linux kernel source a few months ago, GamePark is still not in compliance. Their latest firmware release is missing the I2C drivers. And the modified MPlayer source is still missing. :(
Someone made Linux easy to install...
KILL KILL KILL!!! STOP THEM!!!
Seriously, they put linkable drivers on a CD... That's 100% OK.
Stop trying to stop Linux you Microsoft plant, nice try tho.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
There really isn't any fun, having to take a distro that leaves you with an 80x25 console, or a 640x480 X desktop (and I feel lucky sometimes to have EITHER of these work correctly), and from there, find and download drivers for NV or ATI, and build and boot a kernel that works with what was otherwise a working live system.
This is really not a reasonable thing to expect from a user, not even from a user like me who has been running linux since 0.99pl1.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
RedHat, SuSe, LinSpire and every other company that makes a profit selling Linux Distros include lots of binary only proprietary software that is not GPL, and Linus has said for years that they are perfectly alright in doing so.
Even if it's a driver only issue, the Linksys WRT54G and other BroadComm based routers, WAPs, etc that run linux all include a closed source, binary only BroadComm driver with their distributions. This is even re-distributed in OpenWRT.
I'm pretty sure Kororaa is not in violation simply by distributing non-GPL software with their works.
...NOT GPL here. AFAIK, Nvidia doesn't allow ANYONE, except maybe some commercial distros, distribute their drivers with GPL software, more or less.
There are certainly legal gotchas with such distribution as Kororaa, but my pick is that GPL is "lesser evil" here.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Is it a GPL violation if you have a binary that talks to GPL code thru a wrapper that is GPLd itself? I think there are some binary modules out there, that for the sake of compatibility ease, use a generic interface to a GPL'd wrapper. The wrapper is what you compile each time you rebuild/add a new kernel.
i am an idiot so here i go again.
1) as of the new xorg there is no need for video drivers to be in the kernel.
2) indeed the kernel people have been urging ati and nv to move their drivers out to userland.
3) their drivers need a lot of rework to get to userland, plus they will run approx. 1% slower.
4) neither ati nor nvidia want to lose 1% performance, let alone all the time and testing to move the code.
5) if one moves before the other, the average gaymer, i mean laymer, oops, gamer magazine draws charts that make 1% seem like the entire frickin' page width.
bye now.
Gotcha. No wonder Linux has problems.
The most infuriating thing is how he goes for the puppy angle with this bullshit:
The 'open source spirit of Linux' is that Open Source is supposed to enable people to stop worrying about this licensing crap. If nVidia and ATI aren't complaining, there shouldn't be an issue on our side.And for the most part there isn't. Which is why it's even more sad that he's actually caving to this:
My overall opinion is that this Koraraa guy ought to grow a pair and wait to see what the non-basement-dwelling grownups have to say about his distro's licensing.RedHat, SuSe, LinSpire and every other company that makes a profit selling Linux Distros include lots of binary only proprietary software that is not GPL, and Linus has said for years that they are perfectly alright in doing so.
Red Hat doesn't even distribute basic mp3 players because they might violate someones license. I can't think of a single file or package distributed with Fedora or RHEL that is not available in source to all.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Repeat after me:
There is no GPL code in the binary driver!
Nobody claims there is and that's not the issue here.
One really has to ask how this article submission could have been acceptec, especially as the way the nvidia driver works is clearly spelled out on the kororaa hompage:
The NVIDIA kernel module consists of two pieces: a binary-only
portion and a kernel interface layer (aka the "shim"). The
binary-only portion is not Linux-specific (the same code is used
on Windows, Solaris, etc), and does not include any Linux kernel
header files when it is built. The shim is provided in source code
form with the driver package, and this is the piece that is compiled
for your version and configuration of the Linux kernel. The shim
is the only piece that references Linux kernel data structures or
macros, and only does so to the extent that is needed to provide
the functionality of a modern graphics driver. After the shim is
compiled, it is linked with the binary-only portion, to produce
the final NVIDIA kernel module.
Problems with MP3 has to do with patents, not copyright and the GPL.
Loading up modules shouldn't violate anything.
The GPL is stupid in this regard.
Before you go on about how evil the GPL is, why not wait until there is some clarification on the issue.
So far, an un-identified person sent an email to someone distributing a Live CD making certain claims.
As far as I can see, no one has said whether that person has any code of his/her own in that Linux distribution. Nor has anyone who would be able to say one way or the other been quoted.
Personally, I'd wait until Linus or ATI said that this was wrong before going off on how evil the GPL is.
Perhaps the first point of call is that the nVidia license permits the re-distribution of their driver in Linux distributions. Surely if it was a GPL violation they are not allowed to do this, or perhaps it's just down to the distro maintainer to see if the GPL overrides other package licenses.
I send emails to both ATI and nVidia querying this license issue. ATI didn't even acknowledge my email however nVidia (to their credit) did reply (thank you!). Here is the nVidia license, as quoted in an email from nVidia:
The NVIDIA Software License:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
permits redistribution of the NVIDIA Linux Graphics driver like you are doing:
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms
of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux
or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived
from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied
and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
That's because the kernel and X people are daft. Stuff that fiddles with hardware registers has no business being in userland. It makes the X server one big honking exploit waiting to happen.
Odd. I thought they made their money by selling the hardware.
I can understand this sentiment when it comes to the innards of their hardware, but I find it a bit odd that there is that much value in the secrets in the drivers. After all, a competitor can just buy one of their chipsets and run it for a while watching the signals it gets and the signals it emits to get a pretty good idea of what they are doing and I'd be unsurprised to discover that their competitors are doing exactly that - and probably more.
If they released their technical specs, we'd probably have excellent open source drivers and they could (if they wished) use those and redistribute them (with source, of course). Given the interest of many developers in graphics, I'd bet the open source community would have excellent, well debugged, and efficient drivers available almost as quickly as they could do it in house.
"it's a real sagme"
Now that I agree with.
I think the restrictions in the BSD license are much worse. In the Linux kernel, at least, anyone can add useful things to any distribution. In the BSD Unix one can add useful things only in the FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD distros. For instance, let's suppose you have a Nokia firewall and want to tweak its operating system. You cannot, because it was distributed under the BSD license and Nokia closed it.
Maybe they don't anymore, but RHEL used to be full of closed source tools to run on the OS. Suse's YAST used to be in this category, and I know RedHat had their own stuff.
This is an issue that has been discussed before. See this Free Software Foundation FAQ and this Kernaltrap discussion, which includes Linus Torvalds' own statements. As I understand it, the rule is that if you combine GPL code with other code, you must release the result under the GPL. If the other code is proprietary, you can't release it under the GPL, with the result that you can't release the program at all. The issue is what is considered "combination". The crucial thing is that the combination must be such as to create a derivative work. Simply putting the two programs on the same CD does not create a derivative work. Creating a single binary, as when the kernel links to a library or driver, does create a derivative work. There is an exception for libraries that are a normal part of the system, but since the drivers in question are not normally distributed with the OS, I don't think that that exception applies.
The upshot is that the letter-writer appears to be correct. If you distribute a single binary in which the proprietary drivers are linked into the kernel, you are in violation of the GPL. You can work around this by including the drivers in the distribution as separate files and loading them dynamically.
The FSF is probably a good place to ask questions about how the GPL applies in cases like this.
To paraphrase an eminent American scientist:
He who trades freedom for convenience will have neither.
Case and point: Redmond.
For a podcast I do. Might be interesting listening for anyone who wants to find out about the project.
Saying they're trying to add "useful things" to the kernel is a bit of a judgement call. You might think that adding proprietary drivers is useful, but a lot of people would disagree.
The GPL is designed to prohibit this for a reason, and it's not because the FSF people enjoy making people's lives difficult, it's to keep Linux and the kernel from becoming dependent on proprietary binary lumps. If you want to taint your kernel by adding proprietary modules, more power to you, but you can't redistribute the result. Every user has to add the tainted bits in themselves.
If every distro could just use the nvidia binary drivers, maybe the people working on the free "nv" driver just wouldn't bother. And then one day nvidia decides (because they suddenly become evil / get bought by Microsoft / whatever) to pull the rug out and cease development of the drivers. A few well-placed cancelled projects could set an operating system years behind the competition.
The GPL attempts to ensure that a basic Linux system is at least functional without proprietary add-ons, so that it can't become the hostage of someone who controls a lump of code that everyone has gotten used to depending on.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Redhat (or any other distro) could solve that by a one time unlimited fee payment, I think it is 60 thousand dollars, then they could legally do the MP3 playback thing, although you don't get the source.
t OpenGraphics&PHPSESSID=f1b5ef6703ea1d97e80ffec79dd f088e
Yes, check this page out
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
Yes, it isn't pure, I would also bet that 99% of folks who run linux have a few bits and bytes of impure code on their systems already.
Now I have no idea on the video drivers from the big two, other than you need the binary blobs to run the latest and even then they sorta sucketh. There are a few open source driver projects, but they get little support or notice, including the complete video card project here
http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Abou
I think that Linus should wave his magic wand, and add a little clause that says these guys are exempt.
Yeah, I know, I know. Don't bother...
Get your own free personal location tracker
...to enforce their "copy right". The users can alert the copyright holders of potential violations, but unless the copyright holders take action, nothing happens.
Only copyright holders have standing to bring suit.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. In other words, the fanboy of one distro that will not ship his distro with drivers is suddenly quite pissed that another sees the GPL differently and *will* ship with drives. Hence the "Playing on the same level field" crap. You'll never get a 100% answer to this question, as both camps will argue their point. My advice is get some more intelligent opinions, and even if it's 50/50, go for it. Until someone has the balls and money to publicly come out and say they are against you doing this, it's a violation, etc, release it anyway. Someone is just protecting their pet distro with this shit, that's what it comes down to.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Argh. YaST source has always been available. It was just that the license it used to have forbid using the code in other programs.
The GPL is about making the code Free so that anyone can use it and improve it
There are other licenses that are more "Free", depending upon your point of view.Maybe. But then, as soon as any restriction is placed upon any code, you create edge cases. That's nothing new. Which is why we have "expert" lawyers in the field of "intellectual property" law.
Because there are edge cases is no reason to claim that the GPL is evil.
Certainly not when this case rests on one un-identified individual sending one email to one distribution.
1. Why would he omit any information about *who* sent him the email? That would seem highly relevant. Unless it's from the FSF, the threat is kind of meaningless, is it not?
2. If it truly is a problem, could he not do a bit of compile-the-driver-at-boot-time magic? He would not be distributing anything linked against the kernel headers, the compilation/linking would occur on the user's PC after the fact (slightly Gentoo-like, but for a live CD boot, not for an installation).
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
This is just a bunch of BS analysis done by software engineers, not lawyers. IAMLS (I am a Law Student) and it is basic that not all copying is a copyright violation. Firstly, runtime linking is not GPL violating because it does not create a copy (Copies must be tangible, which requires persistence. Temporary actions in RAM are not persistent. The only caselaw that supports that proposition is in dicta, so not binding.) Secondly, what is copied in copiling the Nvidia or ATI drivers from the kernel is basically nothing (relocation symbols) and is soley for the purposes of intercompatability and therefore does not amount to legal copying (If it did, then the BIOS on IBM-compatible PCs would be infringing for interacting with the copyright on the chipset). I.e. it's basic fair use for software, established by numerous cases. The fact is, not all linking requires the LGPL, only linking that leads to incorporation of a significant portion of copyrightable information.
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. Do not rely on it in anyway. By using this information in anyway, you agree to idemnify and hold harmless the provider of said information. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney.
It's up to the licensor to jump and do something if his license is violated.
What harm is done in this case, making is easy to install Linux? What a sin, shit we all know it needs to be at least 3 days configuring and recompiling sources, anything less and it's a crime.
So who's the zealot who thought that "out of principle" they gotta ruin the effort? Sure, one might argue that doing anything less will "erode" the license's ideas, but how come they jump on the easy victim and not go after all the commercial software that illegally uses GPL code in their binaries?
If that ain't retarded, I don't know what is.
IANAL, but...
Unless whoever wrote that email has some affirmative copyright claim to the Linux kernel or graphics drivers, s/he does not have standing to sue for copyright infringement. The email's author is, of course, free to request that Kororaa cease distribution, but that and $0.50 will only him/her a $0.50 cup of coffee.
Further, one only needs to refer to Linus' view on binary kernel drivers and nVidia's license agreement to see that the relevant interested parties would likely agree that Kororaa is 100% in the clear.
Kororaa is not going to get C&D'd by someone who matters, and in the unlikely event that it does, Kororaa should C&D and seek competent legal counsel then, but not a moment sooner.
that gives you the mentality of these people. They don't want to hear the truth; they just want to live in their little world and be pissed at folks who "don't get it" because they're "too stupid".
In this situation you have hardware devices that have proprietary interfaces. The vendors are willing to provide only binary drivers to protect their intellectual property rights. If you refuse their drivers, you'd have to reverse engineer the chipset and write your own. This is extremely difficult to do correctly and seems wrong to me. It would probably take so long, that by the time a driver was written, it would be out of date and not as functional as the vendor driver. I fear that rejecting these vendor drivers will really slow Linux down. The GPL should allow for added funtionality to Linux that's not open source.
If you want a binary-based system, run Windows. Seriously. Have fun.
I like knowing that I will never need to throw away old hardware because neither the OS vendor nor the hardware vendor cares to provide drivers for the latest version of the OS.
I like knowing I can use my devices with x86, x86-64, PowerPC, 64-bit PowerPC, IA-64, and anything that will be invented in the future. I don't need to go begging some corporation to make a driver for a product they no longer sell.
I like knowing that the driver API is optimal, without contortions for compatibility with an ABI that might be getting obsolete.
I like knowing that I can debug a crash. I have all the source.
I like knowing that nothing on my system will phone home to tell Sony about my sins.
As I see it, the main issue is whether the nVidia and ATI drivers take GPL sourcecode from the Kernel and build that source into their closed source drivers.
I dont know if its the case anymore but i remember way back when i needed some dodgy winmodem drivers and had to use non-gpl drivers to get the horrible thing to work I remember distinctly when adding the module i had this message appear:
"Warning: Loading this closed source mofo will taint the kernel... Bad GPL Juju blah blah"
Maybe not those words exactly but does this not happen anymore?
Including a driver is a GPL violation? It looks like many disagree, but can someone say for sure, that this isn't true?
The nVidia "shim" is licensed under the GPL and is copyright nVidia --- this means that it's perfectly legal to compile the shim against the GPL kernel. At the same time, nVidia is free to do whatever they want with the shim, and its license is immaterial to them at that point because they hold its copyright. The GPL has no say over what else the copyright owner can do with kernel-linked code, the only thing that's mandatory is that it's GPL'd, and it is. For example, it's very common for copyright holders to dual-license their own GPL'd code for commercial and highly proprietary use.
Well, what nVidia chose to do in this case is to link the shim with their binary driver, and they're perfectly entitled to do that, by their copyright. Furthermore, since the shim and the binary driver are separate components from the kernel, they can certainly be shipped on the same CD as GPL components, as long as the binary code is not linked to the kernel. And it's not.
So you see, by virtue of being the copyright holders of the shim and GPL'ing it, nVidia easily comply with the requirements of the GPL but aren't constrained in what else they do with it.
If the binary module were linked against the kernel then you'd be right, but it's not. At no point in time did the binary module even get a sniff of the kernel, and it's shipped without knowing anything about it, nor viceversa.
Yes, the dependency is contrived, but that's how the GPL forced them to rearrange their code dependency graph in order to stay on the good side of the GPL's guidelines.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
all those suckers that bought NVidia or ATI video hardware
... who, exactly?
Just out of curiosity, who are the non-suckers? The people who bought video hardware from
3Dlabs doesn't make GPUs anymore, 3dfx got bought by NVidia, and XGI is gone. That leaves ATI, NVidia, Matrox, and Intel making GPUs. Does Matrox or Intel release source code to their drivers? (Is Matrox even still in the consumer graphics card business?) Who else is there? ATI and NVidia basically have the market for aftermarket cards cornered, to the best of my knowledge, and in both cases their drivers are closed-source. There really aren't any other options for most people.
Personally I'd say go with NVidia, because they seem markedly less evil and their binary drivers seem to suck less, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And patient laws are no different in attracting controversial issues such as this?
Oh wait a miniute people make money from that so is must be okay then.
RedHat, SuSe, LinSpire and every other company that makes a profit selling Linux Distros include lots of binary only proprietary software that is not GPL, and Linus has said for years that they are perfectly alright in doing so.
They don't ship binary-only prorietary kernel modules.
Userland software is a separate issue, and falls under the "mere aggregation" proviso of the GPL.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Search for "is larger than BIOS programmed panel size of" to see the horror.
I have a Dell 1600x1200 LCD with a DVI-D (digital) connector and an NVidia card. Obviously I want to run in native resolution. The NVidia BIOS claims a max resolution of 1280x1024. The proprietary driver ignores this, giving me 1600x1200. The free driver absolutely refuses to violate the BIOS-suggested limit, giving me 1280x960 instead of 1600x1200.
So here I am, with a lovely 1600x1200 digital display, running in fuzzy 1280x960.
The issue appears to be the distribution of the Linux Kernel and nVidia's/ATI binary drivers together. When the binary drivers are built the GPL'ed code is included in the binary result, which is a violation.
From the nVidia Software License:
Maybe Koraraa could modify their Live CD such that it only includes the source code for the nVidia drivers, this would certainly be legal under the terms of nVidia's software license. Putting the source code for the kernel module on the same CD as other GPL'ed software is certainly no violation of the GPL or nVidia license. Upon boot you could just automatically compile the kernel module from the source and insert the module. The binary kernel module is not being distributed, therefore there is no violation of the GPL.
Just for clarification (I had to look this up myself), the nVidia Linux drivers have two parts: a closed source, binary only, platform independent component; and a kernel module distruted as (non open) source code which acts as an interface layer to the linux kernel. The binary only portion contains no GPL code and can certainly be placed on the same CD as GPL code. The kernel module which would contain the product of compiling GPL and non GPL code would not be distributed on the CD, it would only be compiled on the user's computer upon install.
Would this solution work?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
And somehow putting X in kernel space will magically make it more secure? Especially since putting X into kernel space gives it direct access to all the other program's private address spaces, and the ring 0 instructions on the processor?
Somehow, I think that it'll do the opposite.
Also, as a side note, I would like to see you -- or anyone else -- write a program that doesn't use hardware registers at some level. Even the canonical "hello world" program uses (on Linux x86, at least) %eax, %ebx, %ecx, and %edx to do the "write" system call. "_exit()", as well, uses registers %eax and %ebx. Depending on the compiler and libraries, it would use a plethora of others.
Does anyone besides open source zealots care about open drivers? I think so. Perhaps if Nvidia and ATi had open sourced their drivers, Xgl wouldn't have taken so long to exist (Xgl requires a certain level of driver support, and aiglx even more so). I'm pretty sure you'd have liked this just as much 4 years ago, when I first saw people talking about things like openGL accellerated gtk widgets, and otherwise imagining how to use 3d to its best. But 4 years ago, you were writing off a large group of people by doing that.
Furthermore, installing drivers for your ethernet, cd drive, etc is very simple on linux, because the drivers are open source and in kernel. Attempting to maintain a glue between the kernel and your driver is painful and prone to failure; unlike in tree drivers, when someone else breaks code you depended on, you have to fix it, not them. Recall that nvidia's nforce2 boards are better supported in the kernel than by nVidia itself! With no documents to support them in their efforts, even. I hear they even now recommend the reverse engineered driver over their own, but don't distribute or improve, oddly. If nvidia's drivers were GPL'd, installing them would be as simple as installing anything else.
It's pretty naive to think that their IP is so valuable that the source code would disclose it any more than the underlying binary code does. Their IP is already in jeopardy by distributing the software. One of the many reasons I suspect they have no intention of participating in OSS is that there's a number of speed over quality decisions written into it that would be exposed, perhaps even application specific optimizations. While this could be neat to have optimized drivers on a per game basis, this is never disclosed to the public (and when revealed sparks not applause but public humiliation). Furthermore, it means that optimizations are done on their terms, not the public's. Any application specific optimizations are given only to a specific application, with no cross over improvement in other applications, or the ability to make the change. If NVIDIA really wanted to share their drivers with the public and gain all the benefits often touted, they'd stop pointing at other people's IP they own and begin to change it. They haven't, and they won't. What nefarious secrets lie within? Perhaps just a case of "this stuff is really hard, and we don't do it very well?"
Just a thought -- if you dislike the open source spirit as embodied by the GPL, why not do something productive about it, like make a liveCD based on BSD running Xgl. There's nvidia drivers for BSD too, ya know. And for all the talk about pressuring vendors to open their code, they have no qualms about giving it away reguardless with no expectation of anything in return. Linux needs to focus on being Linux, not beating Redmond.
The good news is that I suspect the person who wrote to Kororaa doesn't actually have any basis for the claim. While nvidia's legality has been on shady grounds, the message published doesn't provide any insightful evidence in either direction. Anyone seriously familiar with the kernel and binary objects should be familiar with the recurring arguments and whatnot. It's clear to me that if the drivers themselves were in violation, nvidia would have been sued some time ago.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Just do the building of the "evil" BLOB after it builds, cache it, and then auto-load the result
--
I completely agree with you. Too bad I don't have mod points.
Even the integrated video on motherboards is limited to very few chipset choices. Hmmm.. S3(owned by VIA these days, right?), Nvidia, ATI, SIS... can't think of anyone else. Are S3 and SiS more open about their hardware? I don't own a system with either one. Hell, even my laptop has a ATI Radeon Mobility chip for video!
Seems to me that all the people bitching about using a "non-evil" graphics card must be using old junk for video. I just happen to enjoy playing Doom3 and UT 2004. What card other than an ATI or Nvidia is going to pull that off and has open source drivers?
Yeah, that's what I thought. (Then again, I bet those people will bitch about closed source games installed on my linux system!)
"The GPL attempts to ensure that a basic Linux system is at least functional without proprietary add-ons, so that it can't become the hostage of someone who controls a lump of code that everyone has gotten used to depending on."*
True. Or another way of putting it is "You can't have principles without pain". Like doing without RIAA/MPAA/Steam/Book content. Or in this case a fancy geewiz distro. Look towards many more years of this happening. Viva la RMS!
*BTW wrong lump. It's the hardware that people are dependent on.
A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
Intel publishes open source drivers for their latest integrated video chipsets.
While people may report that some Matrox or ATI cards work fine with open source drivers, those are all old, discontinued cards. If you want to buy new hardware, Intel is basically your only choice for open source drivers.
http://www.centos.org/
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
> Why would he omit any information about *who* sent him the email? That would seem highly relevant.
:)
Yes, it is highly relevant. Only the copyright holders can sue for copyright violation. (Note: the GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation--you cannot be sued for violating the GPL, only for violating copyright. The GPL gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card for copyright violation suits IF you follow its conditions. It serves no other purpose.)
> Unless it's from the FSF, the threat is kind of meaningless, is it not?
No, the FSF has NO SAY over anything unless they own the code! The GPL is basically a boilerplate license much like those legal forms you can buy at office supply stores. The FSF is no more in charge of GPL'd code in general than the company that printed the forms my landlord and I signed is in charge of house I rent.
Of course, the FSF does own some of the code in the kernel, and so they are one of the parties who this could meaningfully come from, but that's because they own (some of) the code, NOT because they "own" the license.
> If it truly is a problem, could he not do a bit of compile-the-driver-at-boot-time magic?
No. Although literal-minded programmers may hate it, the law actually takes intent into consideration. NeXT wanted to try this approach to distribute their Objective-C compiler as a proprietary add-on to GCC, but after consulting with their lawyers and the FSF's, they realized that their intent to deliver a combined GPL+proprietary system to their customers would nail them to the wall, despite the trickery, and it wasn't worth it. That's why GCC includes an Objective-C compiler today.
It's not clear to me that Kororaa actually has a problem, but if they do, "magic" trickery like this won't help them fix it.
IMO, IANAL, if you have legal questions, you should consult a lawyer, and NOT (for what should now be obvious reasons) your fellow nerds!
>> Does Matrox or Intel release source code to their drivers? (Is Matrox even still in the consumer graphics card business?)
Yes, Matrox is still in the business, but they're not really competing directly against nVidia and ATI in the games market -- for example, they provide no hardware vertex or pixel shaders in their consumer cards. And yes, Matrox does release driver source code.
I recently bought a Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe, and not only does it list Linux on the retail box alongside the other operating systems, but their product page proclaims it as "the world's first PCI Express graphics card with open-source display drivers for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems". And they're quite inexpensive too, which is nice.
The drivers are in recent kernels already too, although I'm getting "drmOpenDevice: Open failed" problems at the moment so DRI is being disabled and thus 3D isn't accelerated on that box just now. I hope it's just a local misconfiguration.
Not really sure what the status is beyond that, but in theory the G550 should have good support in Linux without needing any binary modules.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The video drivers in ring0 debate is worn out. 1% is laughable as an estimate for the performance hit. You could construct a benchmark to get those results but it would prove nothing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Things like this make me want to switch to BSD.
Hardware vendors don't want to open source their drivers. Why should they? It is their choice. GPL people don't want to taint their open source code with propietary software. Why should they? It is their choice.
In the end, the victim of this discussion of politics is the consumer. If the consumer doesn't switch to Linux, Linux gets no corporate support and it remains stagnant.
I don't pretend to try to change the views of the GPL supporters, after all, they are giving their creations away for free.
But, if you want more freedom to choose, switch to BSD.
no you dork. video drivers in kernel space lets you run X as a non-priv user. That's the whole fucking point. X should talk to the kernel, not the hardware.
What is FOSS about?
Is it about doing cool stuff with computers, or is it more about the "process" and by process restricting those who can do cool stuff with computers and off the shelf components?
-Brett
If an autocratic dictator driven government (not Korea) takes GPL'd code and refuses to release changes AND claims in his country the GPL is illegal, then IS there technically a GPL violation?
Just a thought experiment
In 2003.
Beat that dead horse some more.
What if I distribute the kernel with instructions on how to add add proprietary module? Would that be OK?
What if I then distrubute the kernel with a helper script that downloads the modules when the user runs it?
What if these modules would reside on the same CD as the kernel, and the script simply copies them from a specific directory instead of copying them from a server?
What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?
And what if this script is a boot script?
But, oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like what kororaa does already...? Where did I cross the line?
Why not allow users to download the latest kernel modules after booting from the CD? This is how Gentoo installs everything anyway - download it when you need it.
Of course, this depends on your definition of 'distributing'. One could argue that by providing a link to the offending modules in an ebuild, you are 'distributing' it. At least you're distributing metadata about it.
But seriously, I don't see the problem here. Can't include kernel modules that are easily downloadable? Fine. Get the user to download them. Or even get the Kororra system to download them automatically when it boots.
Yes, what nVidia has done probably satisfies the legal requirements of the GPL. But let's not kid ourselves: it profoundly violates the spirit of the GPL, and it's a bad thing for free software in the long run. If it weren't for nVidia's half-assed solution, there'd be a significant market for a truly open source solution that another vendor would fill by now.
Furthermore, if Kororaa actually made an all-binary distribution, then they are probably violating the GPL. nVidia's legal hack likely only works because they are distributing the shim in source form and the user compiles it himself whenever it gets installed.
good points
It violates the GPL. It's that simple.
Of course he just want's to build a hassle free distro. Kudos to him. But the next thing we know is Microsoft 'just wanting to provide a hassle-free Direct X for Linux' and shipping it precomiled.
As much as it hurts, here's where we ALL have to draw the line.
The way around, of course, is automating the process of compilation upon install.
Bottom line:
It violates the GPL. Kernel Source Copyright holders can sue you. Don't do it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I am attacted to the idea of free software, I have contributed in small ways to various free software projects, but ultimately place a higher emphasis on usability and functionality than politics. I don't think I'm the only one.
So yes, there is a demand for this, and yes, it goes against the very document which makes GNU/Linux possible. However, there are a significant number of people like me who really just want to be able to apt-get Java and precompiled drivers, and who don't trust Blackdown Java on principle when there's an SDK for Linux available already. I understand not bundling a complete distro with that stuff, but what's so bad about providing an automatic way to taint your kernel?
Check out the prostitute schedule for May 14, 2006 at the MBOT.
The prostitute schedule is updated daily.
Unlike Las Vegas, San Francisco does not regulate prostitution. So, the MBOT heartily welcomes everyone -- including HIV-positive customers.
If you are repulsed by the idea of receiving sex services from a prostitute (at the MBOT) who services roughly 1000 guys per year, then consider the following 2 genuine stripclubs, which prohibit prostitution.
Crazy Horse
-----------
980 Market Street
San Francisco, California
Gold Club
---------
650 Howard Street
San Francisco, California
I love Linux but it is not of the pure hacker spirit. BSD operates under a philosphy that basically says "we made this because we are hackers and wanted to share our creation with the world". BSD doesn't care what you do with it, other than preventing others from taking credit for it.
Linux/GPL basically shoves a loaded political agenda down your throat. I agree with some of the principles but this is a case where the politics have basically taken away from the spirit of hacking and turned it into a political mess that serves no real ends. But more to the point, even putting restrictions on what you can and can't bundle with free software just gets absurd.
Its not the same as taking free source code and making it unfree, you're just saying that your code can't access our APIs to make our graphics nice and pretty and fast. No purpose is being served here and it makes Linux into a political nightmare and anti-hacker.
All of the Gentoo gamecds (UT,American Army,etc) and livecds contained Nvidia and ATI drivers that autoloaded also
Matrox is definitely still in the graphics card business. I have a Matrox dual-head card in my home machine and in my work machine. They open source their drivers. X works perfectly with no proprietary drivers needed.
Also, in most of the distros I've used, the end user has had to actually do the final compilation of the "shim" which combines the closed source and open source code. I think there would be a problem with distributing a binary "shim" without all of the source but I am not certain.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
When you distributed the closed source module along with the GPL'ed kernel on the same medium along with a script to install the module.
Sounds like a religious problem to me. Don't we have enough of those already?
Aggregation on the same medium is not a determining factor. The FSF has said that being on the same medium isn't important, the "mere aggregation" clause.
To be honest, no one knows where the line is, not even the FSF.
"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide." --From the FSF
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Is's compiling it thats a violation, and distributing that compiled result. However, your point still stands, what if they made a boot script to compile it? The source code portions of the ati driver at least compile extremely fast (under 5 seconds).
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
I'm fucking there, Dude.
Suse includes Nvidia shit (not really, but pretty close), and yet, I don't know if it's ATI's fucking fault, or Novell's, that the Radeon drivers aren't in there. Fedora is utterly fucking painful for either, so Suse is at least one up on them (although Fedora supports software-raid controllers).
Kororaa's got ATI drivers?
Downloaded.
The GPL is only concerned with distribution. What the user does on his system is his business. The line is crossed where a GPL program and another program which links to the GPL program but isn't licensed under the GPL itself are distributed together. The shim doesn't save them because when it is distributed with the kernel, it must be licensed under the GPL (requirement of the kernel), even if it is only distributed as source. But then you could just as well leave it out, because the shim extends the same requirement to the rest of the driver that links into it. The shim isn't there to allow distribution of the kernel with a binary driver. Its purpose is to technically enable a binary-only driver to work with changing kernels. Without the shim, the driver would only work with a few kernels due to the kernel's changing interface. The shim provides an abstraction such that the binary part can stay the same and still adapt to various kernels.
What you call "taint" is the manufacturer's driver. You know, the piece of software that makes the card more than just an expensive non-working IC board taking up space in your machine.
I agree that Kororaa was probably out of line including the actual driver binary in the installer. Windows doesn't even do that (it is of course, much easier to install the windows driver than the linux version).
This is what is keeping Open Source software and the GPL from wide acceptance. It is so blindly and religiously anti-closed-source that it presents a legal nightmare. Putting closed-source binary drivers in the installation won't "taint" the kernel. It is Torvalds and his group that decide what goes in the kernel.
"If every distro could just use the nvidia binary drivers, maybe the people working on the free "nv" driver just wouldn't bother."
Maybe if the free "nv" driver wasn't utterly useless (no hardware-accelerated 3D) i'd use it. I love it when Fedora's FAQ tells me "consider using a video card with FOSS drivers, like Intel." That's bullshit! I'm not giving up my nVidia for some shitty, integrated chipset. I want to have 3D acceleration with the card I have NOW, on the machine I have NOW. Nvidia's Linux driver can do that, and that's why I use it. If every distro came with the Nvidia driver, more people would use it. Would the nv people work on a foss driver? probably not, but if nvidia did decide to be evil, then the legality of making your own driver for their hardware would come into question anyway. It'd be like the DeCSS legal battle.
If you want to taint your kernel by adding proprietary modules, more power to you, but you can't redistribute the result. Every user has to add the tainted bits in themselves.
I think your bias is apparent here. What you call "taint" is what I call adding essential functionality to my machine. I want to USE my computer, not spend three hours trying to figure out why my driver won't compile. Believe it or not, the time factor in learning computers is important, especially in the business world. Proprietary closed-source operating systems are far superior in this aspect. Maybe this would be different if there were more "Intro to Linux" classes in community colleges, but there aren't.
What I think it is is that the collective Linux community in general wants Linux to stay the same, and wants all users and hardware companies to bend to ITS way of doing things.
The Linux way of doing things is typically inefficient, and OS X has proven that it doesn't have to be. What stops linux from reaching this level is a community of people who have no clue about usability and no clue how to write programs that common people can use/install/configure.
None of this would be a violation as long as the script is not run behind the users' backs, and as long as the user is explicitly informed they're installing a proprietary driver, told what the consequences are, and asked to click an "AGREE" button or something similar. Distributing proprietary and GPL-ed software on the same CD is not and never has been a violation. And then, just because you wrote a scipt and facilitated the user in installing proprietary drivers shouldn't be a violation either, if done properly. IANAL, though.
"If it weren't for nVidia's half-assed solution, there'd be a significant market for a truly open source solution that another vendor would fill by now."
You forgot to add "...I hope". You'll note the project to create a free and open hardware GPU isn't exactly taking off.
They aren't the first distro to include precompiled nvidia drivers, why are they the first to get in trouble?
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
GEEK FIGHT!!!!!!
Not nearly as popular as cat fights, but we will have to make do.
Only the very old programmers violate the GPL.
AC'd because the mods will tear me to shreds.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Free Software is about Freedom. GPL is about restriction.
Love people, no hate. Love money do not hate.
Unless it was from Linus or some other contributor to the Linux kernel (i.e., a copyright holder) then the appropriate response is: mind your own business.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm not sure what I'd do with a hardware vertex or pixel shader anyway. Maybe run a 3D screensaver to justify having a screaming little fan and massive heat output?
All I need is DVI-D, open drivers, and good high-res LCD support.
Dual-link would be nice, in case I get the 30" Apple Cinama HD Display that does 2560x1600.
Other than that, I want it to run cool, preferably not even needing a heat sink. Silence is golden. Sound should come from the speakers, as desired, not from a jet turbine bolted to the display adapter.
What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?
Yeah, that's basically what gentoo does, which Kororaa is based on.
Gentoo can incorporate whatever proprietary drivers it wants without worries, because it doesn't really distribute them... it just provides ebuilds that tell your computer to download them. But because Kororaa distributes this stuff already put together, they have to be a little more careful.
Those who blame the GPL are missing the point. The GPL was precisely intended to create this "problem" by making proprietary licenses less favorable.
Which is more likely, people quit using Linux or people quit using Nvidia? 10 years ago, maybe it was obviously "people quit using Linux". But as time goes on and more people use Linux, Nvidia may be forced to open source their drivers.
There is strength in numbers, and good things come to those who wait.
I don't really get the point of that post, but merely distributing the "uncompiled/fresh from nVidia" nVidia driver on the same cd as the linux kernel isn't illegal, tons of distros do it, so what if it was, and there was a script, that also happens to be on this cd, that untars it and compiles it then loads it into the kernel? And what if this script happens to be referenced by init?
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
The GPL protects freedom, so it implies. It does so by making sure your rights are protected with regards to the source code you've released. So what about MY rights to keep whatever license I chose to use yet still allowing my code to aid others ?
It boils down to "The GPL user's freedom is my limitation". And you know what's even worse? Were the nvidia/ati drivers to use another accepted open source license (BSD, CDDL, etc.) it would still be a violation.
The GPL was nice when things started and gained attention, with the current open source standards its turning into "Opensource Microsoft". "Which project do you wish to limit today?"
You just proved the parent posters point. You claim to know what is and isn't a violation and still get it wrong, none of the items above are violations, you can distribute on the same media and you most definitely can write helper scripts for the user without violating the GPL. The GPL is a confusing piece of shit and you have once again proven it.
That having been said, two commercial cases where it appears that binary modules are being distributed with GNU/Linux as part of a hardware product would be the Tivo, and some versions of the Linksys cable/DSL/wireless routers.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Who needs to put up with the restrictive GPL license.
Use FreeBSD or OpenBSD instead. This is true freedom.
The nvidia binary driver doesn't contain anything included in the Linux kernel. It is a completely separate work, that interfaces purely with it's 'shim'.
The 'shim' is a different matter the 'shim' links to the kernel - the source code to the 'shim' must be made available to comply with the GPL, and it is available.
Putting the driver binary on the same CD as other GPLed software is not an infringement. It is mere aggregation and is explicity allowed under the GPL, as well being an activity that simply does not fall under the scope of the GPL.
The GPL reaches only as far as copyright law - the GPL is not a contract. If you do not violate copyright law, you do not violate the GPL, and putting the nvidia binary on the same CD as a GPLed component does not violate copyright law.
Come on, somebody poke a hole in that.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
And the broadcom kernels - where the binary parts aren't even modules they're an integral part of the kernel.
Apparently that isn't a violation... so why is this?
"Which is more likely, people quit using Linux or people quit using Nvidia? 10 years ago, maybe it was obviously "people quit using Linux". But as time goes on and more people use Linux, Nvidia may be forced to open source their drivers."
Yeah. All them server installations are just crying out for an open-source driven video card.
AFAIK, that would be great. It might even be possible for them to compile the binary shim on their own system, and just link the shim and binary blob together at boot time, every time, to form a kernel module. As long as the combination of GPLd shim and sourceless blob happens on the user's computer, so that combined thing wouldn't have to be redistributed, it would work fine.
As soon as you redistribute that and therefore need to redistribute the source to the binary blob, then you have a problem.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
That IS a violation. We want them bad.
So distributing the proprietary modules with an install script on a seperate cd would be ok?
What about putting in a boot script that requested the user insert the other cd, which then kicks off the install script?
Knoppix also supports Nvidia. However, it does not come on the CD. The CD boots with opensource video drivers (no 3D acceleration). There is a menu option which then downloads the nvidia package from the nvida website, compiles the kernel module, loads it, and restarts X. In a minute or so you have 3D acceleration without distributing tainted code (GPL kernel modules linked with closed source binaries are "tainted").
Not the greatest, but they do have fairly decent GPUs out there, and they tend to work well under Linux. At least, that's been my experience.
While this kind of licensing and attitude is great for techies, this is a major problem for desktop and user-friendly linux.
I'm pretty much an 'average' user. Before I found SuSE 9, I was kept from using linux because I couldn't figure out how to compile drivers for my nVidia card. Now that I've got that part down, I'm using Linux in my basement, but I'm kept from using it in the rest of the house because I can't figure out how to compile drivers for my wireless setup.
A linux distro with all these drivers included? I would absolutely love it. Heck, I could get my grandmother, mother, and brother on linux.
But as time goes on and more people use Linux, Nvidia may be forced to open source their drivers.
Who is Nvidia's competition? Is ATI any better at officially supporting 3D acceleration in Free drivers?
If the copyright in the kernel held in multiple people, then it's probably a joint work (defined in the statute as a work by more than one party intended, through objective evidence, to become part of a cohesive whole). In that case, they would only need the permission of 1 of them to grant them any non-exclusive license.
GPL is THE cancer, its killing Linux. Only brainless Linux fanatics cannot see that. We must be thankful for Nvidia and ATI for providing drivers rather than keep away from Linux. Everybody knows it is illegal to develop and distribute closed source drivers for Linux but they still found a way to provide with drivers.
These brainless donkeys cannot understand the importance of drivers. Here is a good example, recently I bought a Nokia N91 hand phone. Its spec says it supports USB Mass Storage. But the reality was to connect N91 to my Linux PC, it requires a driver on my PC to drive the cable provided (DKE-2). Nokia releases the driver only for MS Windows 2000 and XP. So I had to return the phone. N91's sound is so amazing, so we Linux users are not lucky to enjoy quality music on the move. Linux market share is more than twice the Apple, but Nokia doesn't bother to release a driver for Linux. Why? Its this *ing GPL.
Open Source developers cannot develop drivers for all the gadgets in the world. They don't have the specs, know how or time for that. Driver development is in the domain of the manufacturer. We must create an infrastructure so that manufacturers can develop quality drivers without a legal hassle.
Which also goes to show why Linux is not ready for the desktop, and can't make a sound business case.
I just happen to enjoy playing Doom3 and UT 2004. What card other than an ATI or Nvidia is going to pull that off and has open source drivers?
You're using open source drivers, but then you go and (censored) it up by using a closed source game.
Right, a console is closed, but people normally treat it like an appliance. You don't go upgrading the OS, installing apps, storing your family photos, etc.
So what if I've developed a game myself? How do I make it run on the appliance? Nintendo says it takes a business and marketing plan in order to become a licensed developer. What's the best way to go about making those and attracting investors?
If the kernel can load the module, it's because the kernels' source code, and the GNU toolchain were available to build it.
The kernel is just a shim which loads the driver, and the source is provided (which is the whole point of the approach). That means GPL compliance, cased closed.
(I should also point out don't need a specific tool chain or kernel source to write a module for a kernel, let alone a graphics driver.)
Hence the reason NVidia and ATI don't distribute kernel modules, but instead a build-system that may-or-may-not be legal
Incorrect. It's clearly legal. Suggesting that by creating a (open) shim which is able to load a binary driver (the same binary distributed for Microsoft Windows) Nvidia are suddenly "breaching the GPL" or in any way doing something illegal is nonsensical.
I would note the same basic mechanism is used by Debian, Unbuntu, Suse Red Hat and FreeBSD (ports) to handle the install of closed binaries, which are integrated at run time with GPL'd software (Debian is the only distribution of those mentioned that has gone some way to be more obtuse about the process, IIRC - and without any solid logical justification IMO).
Having a GPL'd product that interoperates with a closed source product at run time is just fine from a legal point of view, and the assertion that Kororaa are breaching the GPL in doing so is FUD and/or partisan propaganda.
To be breeching the GPL in this instance Kororaa, they'd have to be actively withholding the source for the shim (which is available elsewhere anyway, it's not as if they are going to have modified it).
Interoperating with a closed source product is no more a breech of the GLP that it would be for GLP'd software to talk to closed sourced firmware on a device, they are both linking at run time in an indistinguishable way. After all, the 'meat' of the drivers could theoretically very well be in flashable firmware on the card itself (it's just that for practical purposes, they happen not to be in this instance).
If you are going to set run time interoperability as a barrier, how on earth are you going to define that? Calls to any API that relies on or is similarly linked to closed source software (including software in the form of upgradable firmware on a device), perhaps any form of IPC call whatsoever, including any calls made via RPC interfaces or calls made using the likes of SOAP/HTTP/XML?
RMS may argue that it's a breach of the spirit of the GPL for non-GPL'd software to dynamically link with GPL'd software, which it's quite reasonable to assert, but it's illogical, unworkable and legally unenforceable to "outlaw" dynamic linking of binaries with GPL'd software, or the distribution of GPL'd software which may or may not link with other (potentially non GPL'd) binaries at run time.
Only copyright holders have standing to bring suit.
How many owners of copyright in various parts of the Linux® brand kernel read Slashdot?
Then why does everyone always report GPL violations to the FSF?
For violations related to GNU® software, FSF is the copyright owner and has standing to bring suit. For violations related to other popular free software, FSF can forward the complaint to one or more copyright owners.
"tainting" seems more typically useful than treacherous. This is one big reason I don't like some of the operating systems is because hardware will not be supported because vendors now have to be worried about GPL zealotry and legal ivory towers.
The "problem" here is one of differing philosophies, each of which has, IMHO, something to be said in its favor.
The Linux kernel developers take the view that drivers must be Open Sourced to keep the Open part of the system healthy. I won't go into their argument in detail ('cause I'd do a lousy job of it), but it boils down to there being Bad Consequences of permitting closed-source drivers to get too cozy with the kernel, resulting in a creeping loss of the Open nature of the system if one wants to keep using modern video cards. This argument as presented in the sources I read seemed sensible to me.
The video card folks want to avoid having their chip architectures reverse-engineered from the driver source by cheap Asian clone designers. This, too, makes a certain amount of sense.
I don't really know how to reconcile these opposites, aside from having the players agree on a GPU interface standard that everyone can code to (like that's ever going to happen), which would obviate the need for custom video drivers entirely. But it really isn't a case of one party being evil or greedy or bullheaded...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
When you load a non-GPL-compatible kernel module, it complains. For example, when you load the nvidia module, "nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel" is printed to the kernel logs, and the kernel is marked as tainted (which you can check with the kernel.tainted sysctl variable).
I must say I have always been bothered by the suggestion that writing code to a particular API (such as that of a kernel) could be considered a derivative work under copyright. If I write to the Windows API, have I careated a derivative work of Windows, to be owned by Microsoft?
If you do static linking of some GPL code with your code, then it's not just a derivative work, you are actually including somebody else's code and must get their permission. But static linking is of course less and less common. Modules that call libraries are only bound to the libraries at runtime today. Code is written to APIs but bound at runtime.
This is thus a "loophole" in the GPL, turning it into the LGPL in some interpretations, and to fight that, we see this interpretation that just writing code to an API, making use of the API definition found in header files, makes you a derivative work. I don't think this is a good interpretation for a free software movement to be pushing, even if it means some loopholes.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Sounds awesome! Until I read on the G550 PCIe product page:
Sorry, but 1280x1024 doesn't cut it any more (and I'm not going analog). Sadly, all of their products that I looked at seem to have this limitation (unless you go dual-dvi -- and then you lose dual-headed operation).
The GPL was written so that it would be protected by copyright law. As I understand it, copyright law is unclear about what a derivitive work is. I don't think this was a bad move on the part of the GPL authors. Without copyright law, the GPL isn't really necessary. This means that if congress passes weaker copyright law, the GPL will have less force, but it also means that the GPL is less needed. On the other hand, if the congress passes tougher copyright laws, the GPL becomes stronger. I think this is what makes it so brilliant.
So if we ask what counts a derivitive work, the same standard applies to GPL software as propriatary software. For example, can I write a open source (perhaps non-GPL) extention to Internet Explorer without Microsoft's permission? If the answer is yes, then it should be no problem doing the same for GPL'ed software.
Like 3dfx ?
That market is a competitive one as long as the competitor doesn't know the secrets of the competitor.
There could be Matrox which has some sort of open source driver but their good cards are too damm expensive.
Personally I really don't give a fuck whether their driver are proprietary or not as long at they work.
None of the drivers for NVidia or ATI that comes with the Linux distribution work correctly.
They are basically crap and the only drivers that work correctly are the ones from the manufacturers.
write a program that doesn't use hardware registers at some level
By "hardware registers", Vyvyan Basterd meant those hardware registers that aren't already virtualized by the operating system. Linux virtualizes eax, ebx, ecx, and edx on every context switch. NV and ATI, on the other hand, don't disclose how to virtualize their hardware registers.
You have spoken like a true linux nazi.
I'm surprised at how many replies put some notion of 'market share' above the philosophy of a Free Software system. Have you all forgotten what got us to where we are now, or did you never know? Did RMS say "Geez, recreating UNIX from scratch is hard, I'll just fill in the gaps with some proprietary stuff so we can have it done sooner!". Did Linus say "Geez, writing a kernel is hard, I should just add a couple features to Minix and it'll be done much faster!". Did the GNOME project say "Geez, writing a widget set from scratch is hard, let's just use the non-free Qt release like KDE and it'll be done much faster!". Hell no. They scarificed, and their sacrifice and hard work are why you have the GNU/Linux system you use today. Do you really think all the corporate support we have now would exist had people caved in and dropped the philosophy? Maybe you should ask the FreeBSD people about Apple if you're not sure.
Sacrifice is not easy, but is required. Making it easy to not sacrifice, like with automatix, win32codecs, etc. is only harming GNU/Linux. Why would anyone encode in or advocate Ogg Vorbis when you've made it easy for everyone to not sacrifice and use mp3 illegally? Why would anyone write Open Source 3D drivers when you've made it easy for everyone to not sacrifice and use binary-only 3D drivers? Why would anyone write Linux games when you've made it easy for everyone to not sacrifice and use pieces of proprietary Windows to run them? Quite simply, they won't. You relieve the pressure in the steam engine that is Open Source development, and the engine just simply won't run.
This isn't an issue of "Oh well, at least the programmers that actually make this stuff care about the philosophy and will save us from ourselves" - you can't just ignore a population problem like that. Everyone needs to be on board, we need advocacy and strength, not sloth and waffling, and especially not people attempting to tear down the philosophy from the inside as this thread reeks of. Build pressure. You might not be able to program but you can still make a difference. See someone producing content in a format that can't be read by a Free system? Complain, and point them to an alternative. See a company refusing to release Free drivers or specs for hardware you want to buy? Complain, tell them why it matters. See people writing web pages that can't be viewed by a Free system? Complain, and tell them how to write web pages right. See a Free project that could overcome any of the problems you're facing? Chearlead and advocate it, show the developers their work is important to you, and refuse to use non-free alternatives.
Don't attack the philosophy that fed you, be prepared to sacrifice and work. It's why the world's changing, and I want to see that change to its finale.
IMO, the true blame for this rests with ATI and NVIDIA for not releasing the drivers open source in the first place.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
This could be a fair use issue. Perhaps the creator of Kororaa could claim that his distro is a parody, or criticism, pointing out how useful Linux could be if it weren't for elitist nerds who need to compensate for their lack of female attention. :-P
I've read the message the creator of Kororaa received and all the comments on his post (TFA). Apparently, the e-mail was anonymous and the method for reporting a GPL violation was not followed. Only the copyright holders of the video drivers and Linux (ATI, nVidia, the kernel developers) have an interest and if they all give him the go-ahead, then he's golden. A random e-mail from some jackass claiming he "knows the law" is not a legally valid C&D order. If he receives a letter from a legal entity, then this is an issue. Apparently he's taken the high road and removed his distro entirely until things are sorted out.
Everybody's running around like Chicken Little. It's just a driver folks, it's not going to destroy OSS and it's not going to destroy Linux.
in theory, I like the GP's argument, but yeah, until someone competing with nvidia offers free drivers, it's not gonna happen. and ATI is actually worse - they don't actually offer proprietary ones either.
I'm actually notably more interested in seeing ATI Open source their windows drivers, because I could expect linux ones shortly theirafter, and because they work poorly enough that I've only made the mistake of buying an ATI card once in my life. black snow on planet hoth. random star-like bursts of light in the middle of industrial complexes. perhaps an extreme case, but dude. if for no other reason, Open source them so that more people will be willing to use your hardware. I imagine it's a much more noticeable segment than it would be for most products.
No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
I think ideals are a good thing; however, if you cannot look past your insular world view and take a REALISTIC assessment of the situation for just a second, then your projects will probably share the same fate as the mainframes.
I think OSS does have a promising future, but if the FSF zealots continue to rabidly attack people with a different software development ideology, then OSS will be relegated to a niche like servers, or, as only a mere curiosity for the hackers of the future, who do all their REAL work in Visual Studio 2018. If 'we' want to help foster OSS development, 'we' have to be willing to work with people who do not share 'our' beliefs. One part of 'growing up' is learning how to work with people who do not share the same ideals as you, but sometimes you two can strike a compromise that benefits everyone.
Here is a quotationg from Eric Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming:
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Why not just include a autodownload script that downloads and installs the drivers straight from the nvidia ati or whoever during the install. Just a few simple lines of python or perl and everything is solved. Then it is entirely up to the user if they want to install unsupported software. Same goes for mp3, video codecs, flash plugins, adobe stuff just build a script to install if the user clicks ok it does not have to be any harder than that.
Got Code?
RMS interperates the GPL to mean that it applies to DLLs, but your right the license doesn't say that. Here's what it actually says:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
The GPL doesn't try to ensure this at all.
The *people* writing the code for all these drivers try to ensure it.
I seem to recall that one of the reasons that Linus quoted for not wanting proprietary code in the kernel was to minimize the support headaches from people who had "issues", where he couldn't debug the problem.
The FSF takes one stand on the GPL, and that is that all software should be free.
As I understand it, Linus takes a very different stand. That stand is that he wants *his* software to be free.
The GPL can be used as a tool to achieve both ends, but please don't assume that everyone who uses the GPL falls into the FSF camp, or vice versa.
The kernel is under the GPL, so you should be able to ask them for the source code to the entire kernel, as they distribute it.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The shim is a derived work of the kernel
As I understand it, the binary-only driver is an application that uses the syscalls exposed by the shim. Linus has stated that syscalls are an acceptable way for proprietary software to call into the kernel.
You can't apt-get Java because Sun won't let you, because you have to click through an EULA on their website. By law, this process cannot be automated, so apt-get can't legally be programmed to do it. Every other piece of proprietary software is the same way (which is what "proprietary" means). Therefore, proprietary software can not be "apt-getted" by definition.
In fact, I'm suprised Nvidia and ATi aren't going after these Kororaa people, because as far as I know, they don't allow this kind of thing either!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, does providing an apt repository for the nvidiav idia.shtml)
proprietary drivers (as CERN does for their scientific
linux version, which is a recompiled RHEL, as documented at
http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/scientific3/docs/n
violate the GPL? CERN does the same for the ATI drivers.
Clearly they should be big enough (and probably have
enough real lawyers) to have addressed the GPL issues.
I'm so sick and tired of seeing this stupidity repeated over and over again. No matter how often it's debunked, it's like the night of the living dead, astroturfers just keep slinging it. Both in the context of hardware, and also I've noticed MS using it in Europe recently in complaining about the interoperability demands.
No one wants their crufty buggy source. All that's wanted is proper documentation of the protocol for speaking with the hardware, in the one case, or the software, in the other.
Microsoft, of course, has rational cause to fear this in the case of their software. Once other people can write software that interoperates with it, they'll lose sales.
Hardware manufacturers, on the other hand, have no rational reason to resist this. If they'd just provide some simple interoperability specs, they could save all the money they now spend on writing linux drivers, and get BETTER drivers written for them, maintained for them, by the community, at no charge. And support not just linux, but every other free operating system as well, again, at no charge to them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Bastards!
I wonder if, as a receiver of the goods (easy, download firmware upgrades for the older linksys routers), if I can sue for compliance with the only license that allows for distribution of the kernel.
Whichever company comes out with a Free driver first immediately gains a huge competitive advantage in the Linux market
There's a huge entry barrier in designing a 3D accelerated video card, part of which involves licensing essential hardware patents owned by NV, ATI, and other companies. Any company that surmounts this entry barrier will likely find it easier to justify marketing to the 90% desktop Windows users than to the 3% desktop Linux users.
this is my understanding; correct me where I'm wrong as I have not dealt with any of this software personally, this just comes from what I've picked up by reading about it.
The drivers you get from Nvidia/ATI (for simplicity I'll just consider the Nvidia case and assume the ATI case is legally identical) consist of (1) the actual binary driver and (2) the source code to a kernel module that you need to build/link with the kernel, BOTH distributed under the same non-GPL-compatible license seen here http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
Kororaa (henceforth "the project") is distributing (1) the same binary driver and (3) a COMPILED binary of the kernel module
Nvidia is the sole copyright holder for (1). The project needs Nvidia's permission to distribute it, which is granted in section 2.1.2 of the previously linked license.
(3) is a derivative work of both the Linux kernel (because of included headers) and (2). The project needs permission from Nvidia and the copyright holders of the Linux kernel of them in order to distribute it.
If (3) is distributed under a GPL-compatible license, the copyright holders of the Linux kernel grant their permission via the GPL.
In order for (3) to be distributed under a GPL-compatible license, Nvidia's license for (2) needs to be GPL compatible for the project to avoid infringing Nvidia's copyright for (2).
Nvidia's license for (2) is NOT GPL-compatible because it does not allow for the preparation of derivative works among other reasons.
Therefore (3) may not be distributed under a GPL-compatible license.
Therefore permission is not granted by the copyright holders of the Linux kernel to prepare a derivative work and the project's distribution of such a work (3) is copyright infringement.
Nvidia's distribution of ONLY (1) and (2) is not copyright infringement because they are the sole copyright holders of (1) and (2).
...would be to ask why someone would want to use the nvidia drivers for Linux in the first place. In most cases that would mean playing games.
;-)
I am as much an advocate of Linux being used in some areas as anyone else, but gaming quite simply is NOT one of said areas. To me, being one of the two or so percent of people who use Linux as their sole OS could be the only sane reason for doing so. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For starters, the games that do work for Linux generally only do after a large investment of pain and suffering, and for another thing, 3D on Linux means OpenGL exclusively, which, to put it mildly, sucks. Also...before you say it, none of the native Linux games I've seen count; and nethack certainly doesn't. In this scenario I'm referring to games played by people who live above ground.
Linux is really awesome for some things, but gaming ain't one of them.
The FSF tactic is akin to the cold war era use of atomic weapon: disuasion.
In practice, the FSF is drawing the line. Its enough for the FSF to say they are going to file a lawsuit, and the offending company usually back down.
This is dangerous, they are playing with the "gray area". At some point one stupid company is going to go for a fight to define what the GPL really means, and then the supreme court will decide after 5 years of lawsuit (because I'm pretty sure they would not stop at a lower court)
It would be much better if they were using technical definitions of what you can do with software than philosophicals one.
I'm not a fucking lawyer, for god sake. How am I supposed to know what the GPL means by linking if its not in technical terms ?
Incorrect!
e gation
Inclusion of proprietary code on the same CD as the open source code is not the same as "creating a derivative work". http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggr
Creating a script to install the proprietary code is also not a derivative work. You have used no GPL code in your script, and no GPL code in your drivers. The act of installing or running proprietary code on linux does not violate the GPL.
The only place in that series of steps that could be dangerous would be the automatic installation. If you left it up to the user to run the program that installed your drivers, there would be nothing the GPL could do.
OK, I've got karma to burn.
I just happen to enjoy playing Doom3 and UT 2004. What card other than an ATI or Nvidia is going to pull that off and has open source drivers?
Actually, I use Nvidia's binary driver. :P
I was just waiting for one of you open source utopians to express the "closed source games are evil" opinion. Let's face it, while there have been some good open source games released, 99% of the games in the world are closed source, and some of them I have deemed are worth my time and money spent. The game industry wouldn't truly exist without the profit motive, and in general they see the need to keep things closed to ensure that.
Games don't need to be closed source to make money. That's what you're probably thinking at the moment. The only system that would work that I can think of is if a source CD was included in the same box as the binary CD. Obviously, you couldn't post the source on a publicly accessible server, for people who can would download the source and compile the game - never giving the company one dollar.
Things to keep in mind:
TECHNICALLY, seems the GPL prohibits what Kororaa is doing with their Live CD. HOWEVER, seems Linus would side with them. HOWEVER HOWEVER, this would have to be legally debated, in other words, "defended". There's no explicit legal protection, and to get a judgment call would require money, lawyers, and being tangled in a lawsuit.
All of which would be silly and embarrassing both inside, and outside, of The Community.
I, personally, am very much in favor of "completely free (as in speech)" software. Mr. Stallman may be a "stickler", but I find him heroically inflexible. The world needs MORE Mr. Stallmans who actually and honestly stand tall, stand proud for what they believe in. And I'm not kissing ass here: I share his vision, but am far weaker in my convictions.
The pragmatist in me thinks that the Linux kernel's license should be changed to the LGPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html) I know full well, however, that this would be a huge step backward for Freedom. (Anybody saying otherwise is either [1.a] simply not intelligent enough to understand, or [1.b] hasn't bothered to consider the implications, [2] has ulterior motives, and/or [3] has a personal vendetta against RMS due to personality conflict. "Consider the messenger...")
But PRACTICALLY, it would enable real headway on the driver/support front. I think ATI and nVidia (and every other closed-source **DRIVER** maker) is quite daft. But they have their "reasons", even if we neither know, nor understand them.
It's laudable to DREAM of a world where all software is Free, both as in Speech AND as in Beer. Bur for now, and for the foreseeable future, we all live and work in the Real World. Unless we're friendly and play nice with the other children, most proprietary companies, especially hardware creators, may very well choose to take their balls and go home. (To those who cry, "GOOD RIDDANCE!", I ask for you to tell us all of the open-source-hardware, with accompanying open-source drivers, to replace their wares with!) Free and Open (Source) Software makes its virtues self-evident. We need not be antagonistic.
The truth of the matter is that the hardware we want open-sourced drivers for the most is made by companies comfortably at the top of their game. They sell PLENTY of hardware to not need to worry/care about The Community one iota. They ha
"To err is human, to totally fsck things up requires an election." - L.W. Hale
Agreed that mere "Aggregation on the same medium is not a determining factor." However, I read that to mean that it is the act of distributing it together that matters. If you distribute it together, but on separate CDs you are still distributing it together. Being on separate CDs is no different than being in separate directories.
What I'm wondering is who sent the complaint to Kororaa? Unless the email originated from the Linux Kernel team (specifically OSDL) it can be ignored. Its not like FSF or anyone else can really lay claim to the kernel and sue based on the violoation.. Or am I way off?
Intel publishes open source drivers for their latest integrated video chipsets.
Open-sourced drivers don't automagically make the hardware they run good. The performance of Intel graphics chips is considerably less than ATI/NVidia, with closed or open drivers. But the distribution is still good, I wonder why they open-source and the others don't (maybe less to steal?)
Stallmanist zealot invokes the GPL to stop a Linux distro from including binary drivers, and you blame Microsoft. How typical.
This whole thing only goes to show that intelligence is GPL-incompatible. Programmers who aren't uptight, selfish misanthropes license their code under BSD.
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
What if these modules would reside on the same CD as the kernel, and the script simply copies them from a specific directory instead of copying them from a server?
My understanding is that this would be a violation. Maybe you could squeak by if the module were distributed on a separate cd. I think a separate cd would be fine if the end user compiles the "shim" which combines the Linux code with the closed source bits.
What if the user was presented the text of the script and was told to type it into the interpreter? What if a new programming language was developed just for this task? The functionality of the script could be designed as such that the text of the script would read "FUCK.YOU->R.M.S()". Once everyone was dependant upon binary modules, we would all have to type that in to install Linux.
Also, why does separate media matter if they are distributed in the same box or envelope? It's still distribution, whether it's one CD or two.
You idiots! GPL is will be the death of open source... wake up!... with todays companys patenting *EVERYTHING* adventually linux wont be able to support *ANY* new hardware and then it will simply die... thats why Gates gets up on his high horse and looks down the nose at open source... GPLs utpioa of all software for free doesnt exist!... just protect the code that is freely given and dont try to force everyone else to give it up for free.. People need to eat, so u have to make cash some how!
This is called "user does the link". Google it
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
"Suppose we completely set aside the goal of widespread adoption, and simply leave open the goal that people should be able to use Linux to do whatever they want."
You need to add "with whatever hardware they have no matter the source" to the end, because that's what you're saying. Look, you CAN do whatever you want to do with it. It's there. Download it. If it doesn't work 100%, well, you didn't pay for it.
Why is it the expectation that everything in Linux must work for everyone? There is no point to Linux. People, companies, universities, etc use Linux for all sorts of stuff. It's really enriched the world with a free OS that everyone can utilize. Because it doesn't support your video card, we should change all that? We should allow it to become closed source?
The things that have made Linux big and strong are the things you'd like to see changed. For me, I'd rather keep chugging along at a steady pace rather then forgo the driving force behind GPL software for the purpose of giving us a quick bump. Look how far things have come already? There's Open Source drivers for a lot of hardware now. Manufacturers are providing specs and the OSS hackers are writing their own drivers. It's amazing, really. nVidia and ATI will come around eventually. Until then, blame THEM for not supporting your Free OS in the licencing model of the Free OS; don't blame the Free OS.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
switcher \'swi`ch &r\, n.
A person who thinks that they are a Mac user but are really just trying to be. The mistake they make is to try to become a Mac user, when real Mac users are all about not trying to be anything and following your own rules. There is no fashion code to being a Mac user. There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.
Recent converts like you are ruining the old school Mac community because you are posers. Apple releases one OS that popularizes Fitts' law and the Genie effect, and suddenly people assume being a Mac user is all about owning a Mac. But a real Mac user is born, not made. You "switchers" are misrepresenting yourselves and the Mac platform. You're giving people the wrong idea of what Macintosh is.
switcher: shops at hot topic, thinks Firefox is a good Mac app, waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000, follows any hint of a fashion trend (instead of setting them!), wouldn't know Clarus from Carl Sagan.
real Mac user: someone true to who they are, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.
Think of this:
Linus says:
Reiserfs (e.g.) was created for Linux, therefor is is derived from Linux.
SCO says:
JFS (by IBM) was created for (SCO's) UNIX, therefor it is derived from UNIX.
So Linus' argument supports SCO's position.
I'll make a brief aside here to remind you that any interpreted "program" is both code and data. To the interpreter, it's just data. The interpreter loads some text (just data), builds the parse tree (still data), and instantiates the various code objects it represents (STILL data). However, once you actually jump to an address and start executing that data, it becomes a program.
So now I'll repeat my previous rhetorical question: how do you define "source code" for data? Here's my modest proposal:Just compile this program and feed it the binary you need to "decompile". It will output a C program that you can ship as the "source code" for the binary. If you plan to ship your binary with GPL'd code, be sure to license the newly generated source code under the GPL or a compatable license. Oh yeah, and a word of warning: the source code will probably be significantly larger than the binary, even if you gzip it.
Actually I've downloaded burnt and tested Kororaa and have found it very great. Wow a CD that boots automatically, detects all my hardware AND enables 3D acceleration. Come on people, Kororaa is just meant to be a Live CD, or a Gentoo installer...
IMO, the "shim" is irrelvant from a legal perspective. It only exists for engineering purposes because there is no standard module ABI.
Rather, the NVidia driver is clearly legal because of what it is -- an fully independant software work that's not derived from the Linux kernel. The fact that it calls kernel functions (directly or not) to do it's job is irrelvant.
For the same reason, Win32 programs are not derived from MS Windows, and PHP scripts are not derived from PHP.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Its this kind of thing that gives the GPL people a bad name. Is it really necessary to enforce the GPL at every opportunity? I remember another case that annoyed me a few years ago - the Gaim developers had a go at the FreeBSD ports people for linking Gaim with OpenSSL (which is of course not GPLed, but BSD licensed). Daft.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Now what about pre-installed Linux on a box with proprietary drivers like Linspire/Wallmart sell? What about those? In these systems the kernel & proprietary drivers are on the same medium (the boot disk).
Same goes for all them thar Linux cell phones, Nokia 770s etc. Proprietary stuff & Linux on the same medium (boot flash).
Kernel tainting is not illegal, it is just that if you send in an oops from a tainted kernel you'll get no support.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
IMO, the "shim" is irrelvant from a legal perspective. It only exists for engineering purposes because there is no standard module ABI.
You're wrong. The shim is very important legally speaking. The shim itself is a derivitive of the linux kernal, therefore legally speaking it must be distributed under the GPL. However, parts of it are not derivitive of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel. If the ABI that it supports is one of these parts (it need not be for engineering reasons, but for legal reasons the companies that have produced these *should* have ensured that it was by having it designed by somebody with no knowledge of linux kernel internals) then anything implemented using that ABI is *not* derivitive of the Linux kernel and need not be distributed under the GPL.
This is absolutely basic copyright law, and anyone who yells "but the GPL says..." or "but Linus says..." are missing the point. It doesn't matter what either of these are saying, because all that matters is whether what nVidia et al have done is *unauthorised copying* under copyright law as it currently stands. And that hinges only on the question of whether the ABIs they have produced are derivitive of linux kernel internals.
To put it another way, it is possible to develop a "shim" of precisely the same nature as the ones we're discussing that would enable you to load binary drivers with some preexisting ABI. This has, in fact, been done more than once: captivefs is a shim that lets you use Microsoft's NTFS driver, and ndiswrapper is a shim that lets you use drivers written to Microsoft's NDIS network driver ABI. Does the existence of these layers mean that all of these drivers, developed with no intention of running them under Linux at all, are suddenly GPL violations? Or are captivefs and ndiswrapper's shims GPL violations despite the fact that they distribute source code under the GPL as required? Or perhaps somebody would be violating the GPL by distributing ndiswrapper and an appropriate driver on the same media, despite the "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL clearly stating that this isn't a problem?
However, there are a significant number of people like me who really just want to be able to apt-get Java and precompiled drivers,
I apt-geted Java and nvidia drivers for my Ubuntu machine.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
I'm currently at Columbia J-School and as a journalist formerly of both the BBC and the Financial Times, I can confirm parent poster's account of Moglen's disgusting habits. In particular, his late night runs to Tom's Diner are legendary. In case the thunderous noise down Broadway weren't enough to warn you of his approach like a herd of roaring buffalo, you'd surely know by the scent of stale cadaver so often associated with GNU/Linux on the gentle midnight breeze. Cadaver, and semen.
Mepis is distributed with both Nvidia and ATI drivers though you have to chose them during install rather than having them activated automatically.
"The kernel is just a shim ..."
Stop there.
You either dont know what kernel is, or you dont know what a shim is, but ill give you a second chance;
What two things do you think the kernel a shim between ?
Kororaa will fix it and life will continue. It's actually a good thing this happened because the GPL is still confusing to a lot of people and this will bring some amount of awareness with it.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"However, parts of it are not derivitive of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel"
If its entirely independent then it wouldnt need the kernel at all.
Would it not be possible to extend apt-get to allow EULA text to be displayed (when required) during the install process?
I appreciate that this is not currently available, so proprietary software cannot be got through this process, but as far as I can tell, that's an issue with the current implementation of apt-get rather than a fundamental barrier.
Newsflash, this policy has failed and the kernel is already dependent upon "proprietary binary lumps" for much modern functionality. The alternative to the nVidia driver for modern 3D graphics are .... hmm. There isn't one. Looks like if you need these things (eg, you are a 3D artist) then you are out of luck, you can't use Linux.
Some people (*cough*kernel developers) are entirely satisfied with that state of affairs, however, what they tend to ignore is that their salaries are paid for by companies that are aggressively pushing desktop Linux, and a desktop OS that can't do accelerated graphics or wireless or virtualization or any of the other things proprietary drivers are used for is not very competitive, therefore, they'd probably be out of work if the issue was forced.
It's a typo (in a long post, where quite a bit was moved around to improve overall readability before posting).
It was supposed to read "the kernel module is just a shim". Other people seem to have understood that from the context though.
The GPL states,
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
And the way that copyright law dertermines if something is a derived work is called 'Abstraction Filtration Comparison'.
Basically I don't see how something that doesn't contain any of the code in the kernel (e.g. a binary driver) can be called a derived work under copyright law making the GPL and LGPL are esensially one of the same.
As an example of this think about an applicaiton that uses OpenGL under Linux, If they compiled against NVidias drivers and had a closed source application would they have to release their application under the GPL just becaue someone ran their application using Mesas drivers? I think not.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If you don't like it, find another club. You are welcome to leave the GPL club. The Linux community can want whatever it wants for Linux, but until the Linux developers decide to release Linux under a different license, being a member of the Linux community means being a member of the GPL club too. Again if you don't like it, no-one will miss you. In fact I want you to leave, because your presence taints the community, like a proprietary module taints our kernel. Goodbye and good riddance!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
the GPL is pretty clear that it requires that GPL applications can't link to non-GPL libraries
No, it does not. Really. All that can be construed from the text of the GPL is that derivative works, if distributed, must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. In the case of the NVidia drivers, only the "shim" is a derivative work of the kernel, and it _is_ distributed under the terms of the GPL. The binary part is _not_ a derivative work of the kernel -- it's the same part that's used by Windows, Solaris, drivers etc.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This is exactly why no one outside your club will want your POS irrelevant software.
In other news, lots of people discovered the power of linux systems without the hassle of getting their ati and nvidia video drivers to work. Violation of GPL? Sure. Was a good thing? Most definitely. I'd rather have the source without blobs of all drivers, anyway...
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
Until the market these companies are in changes, their hands are tied.
I don't like it either, but it's hardly fair to blame NVIDIA and ATI.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In fact, I'm suprised Nvidia and ATi aren't going after these Kororaa people, because as far as I know, they don't allow this kind of thing either!
I'm not surprised at all. I bet NVidia and ATi are thrilled that you've bought their hardware, and couldn't give two shits about the fact that you want to use their software.
What's going on here is that they CANNOT release their driver open source, because it means the death of the company. I'm not sure I like it any more than the next guy, but Open Source is *not* good for some applications. Their drivers are a trade secret. The only way that NVidia and ATi would open source their drivers is if they both did it at exactly the same time, because if one does it and the other doesn't, the one who didn't is now at a HUGE advantage in knowing what is going on inside the other company. As fast as the Graphics Card worlds moves, that's suicide.
Not to mention, this would allow for reverse engineering of the hardware, based on the software calls. Call A inputs data B, and C is the result. OK, well, we'll make our chip do that. Which sounds ok on the front end, but the catch is that the third party doesn't have to open source their drivers either (not if they write them from the ground up); all it does is save them millions of dollars and years worth of building up an engineering portfolio to get to where the Big Two are today. NVidia and ATi aren't going to let that happen; they spend millions on R&D for a reason, and that reason isn't to have other people reverse engineer in months what they worked on for years.
I love open source software. I really do. It pays my salary, and I use it every day. But, it's not appropriate for everything.
Having said that, I think it's completely stupid that people are up in arms about what essentially amounts to a shell script that takes two entirely legal entities and combines them into something, without the intent of redistributing that something. We've all done it - add the NVidia driver to linux by ourselves. What the hell is wrong with someone writing a shell script to do it for us? It's like a bar, saying they can't legally serve you a Screwdriver, then handing you a half full glass of Orange Juice and a shot of Vodka and winking. This time you don't have to go to the liquor store and the grocery store, which happen to be 15 miles apart. I'd embrace the new method.
~Will
sig?
The parent poster is correct when he said:
"However, parts of it are not derivative of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel"
You replied:
If its entirely independent then it wouldnt need the kernel at all.
That's the point, it is entirely independent (it's the same binary driver as supplied for Windows users, as previously stated).
You still need a method for it to interface with the kernel if want to use it with Linux, and that's what the module is for (and it's the module that is a derivative work from GLP'd software - not the binary, which is a useable driver in it's own right, demonstrably independent of the OS).
Each to his own, at least I'm not complaining about something that isn't about to change.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
"If every distro could just use the nvidia binary drivers, maybe the people working on the free "nv" driver just wouldn't bother"
If the "nv" people bothered, then I wouldn't need the binary drivers. Installing linux should be easy, but every time I go through it, I have to futz with the real nvidia drivers because the bundled nv one doesn't work. Yeah it'd be nice if they GPL'd their code, but in the real world they make a good & popular line of cards that any OS needs to support if it wants a place in the Desktop market. The same goes for other things like flash and other closed tools. People expect to be able to use those, and to tell them "you can't because macromedia/nvidia won't follow our rules" is just arrogant. MS might be able to strong arm them into that but Linux isn't there yet.
Finally Linux is catching up with Windows. No I can distribute version of Linux illegally, just like my friends using Windows.
As I understand it, the GPL basicly states: if you are going to use gpl code in your project, then you have to gpl your project.
It doesn't go the other way around. You can use binary drivers, or applications, with a gpl OS - it's done all the time.
nVidia drivers are not "derived" from gpl code, just because they are included in a gpl OS.
JHMO.
However, the argument is still over whether to protect the (immediate)developer or the end-user/developers further down the line. BSD does the former, GPL the latter.
Yeah yeah, I'm just being a picky bitch... :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
To put it another way, it is possible to develop a "shim" of precisely the same nature as the ones we're discussing that would enable you to load binary drivers with some preexisting ABI. This has, in fact, been done more than once: captivefs is a shim that lets you use Microsoft's NTFS driver, and ndiswrapper is a shim that lets you use drivers written to Microsoft's NDIS network driver ABI. Does the existence of these layers mean that all of these drivers, developed with no intention of running them under Linux at all, are suddenly GPL violations? Or are captivefs and ndiswrapper's shims GPL violations despite the fact that they distribute source code under the GPL as required? Or perhaps somebody would be violating the GPL by distributing ndiswrapper and an appropriate driver on the same media, despite the "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL clearly stating that this isn't a problem? But that's not happens with the NVidia kernel driver - in this, the shim and driver are linked (irreversably) into a single binary kernel module as part of the build process, and this is almost certainly what Kororaa are distributing. If the shim counts as a derivative work of the kernel, the end kernel module almost certainly is too (though IANAL), which means you're in trouble if you start distributing it.
If A and B are developed completely independently, you cannot, in any context whatsoever, legal or otherwise, ever claim that B was derived from A.
If you create C, which incorporates elements from A and B, you can say that C is derived from both A and B. Because it is. If A is licensed under the GPL, you cannot redistribute C unless it, too, is licensed under the GPL. By licensing C under the GPL, the elements from B that made it into C are thus licensed under the GPL. B as a whole is not.
Derivation is not communicative. You cannot say that since C was derived from B, that B is also derived from C. GPL may be viral, but it hasn't mutated to the point where it can infect backwards in time.
The issue of derivation is only controversial when you bring the discussion up in a room of thousands of legal noobs. The issue is actually fairly straightforward from a legal perspective, and I believe it's already been tested.
I thought the issue was how it was bundled? Am I incorrect in that assumption?
"brix_zx2, What is your sole purpose in this forum!?!?!"
"To do whatever you tell me MODERATOR!!!!"
Does anyone besides open source zealots care about open drivers? I think so.
No. Quite frankly I like nVidia's drivers. They work well, I've installed them on at least a dozen unique machines over the last few years with no issues.
One of the many reasons I suspect they have no intention of participating in OSS is that there's a number of speed over quality decisions written into it that would be exposed, perhaps even application specific optimizations.
Doubtful. The more likely reason is that since they used a shared codebase with their windows drivers (95% of the code in your kernel driver is common with the driver on a windows machine) they probably have IP they don't want revealed.
As a developer I'm glad they do this. When I render something on my linux box, I know when I recompile it for Windows in a few hours/days it will look the same. That can't be said for ATI, or Matrox, or any other card. There are **so** many inconsistancies out there. And if people start rolling their own nVidia drivers for Linux then the same deterioration will happen for the nVidia drivers as well.
None of this would be a violation as long as the script is not run behind the users' backs, and as long as the user is explicitly informed they're installing a proprietary driver, told what the consequences are, and asked to click an "AGREE" button or something similar.
Where do these requirements come from? I can't find them in the GPL. How does giving explicit notice to the user (who isn't doing anything relevant to copyright law) affect what is inherently a copyright issue?
if everything in the world was managed by gpl folks like richard stallman, it would be against the law to take a shower or wear clean clothes. do you want to live in a world like that?
What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?
;)), then including these on a CD that says, "Hey, you want me to install these for you?" seems like it shouldn't violate it either.
... ...
This is certainly a violation.
And what if this script is a boot script?
Again, a certain violation.
Why are these violations? I'm reading the GPL again, so that it's fresh in my mind, but I haven't yet seen anything that these violate. I'll list the major points of the GPL and maybe that will help clarify which would be violated.
(Attribution: The following are cribbed from the GNU GPL. I trust we all have a copy handy.)
1 - " You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it..."
Since the program in question is the Kernel (right?), they are surely releasing the source code for what they received, with licenses.
2- "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it... "
2B - "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
OK, 2b looks like it could be a sticking point. However, it really seems as if the line between "copy the file off of the same CD" and "download it for you from the internet" is very thin, and I'm not sure what the conceptual difference is. Do we need to engage pedant-mode to see this? (I'm not trying to be a wiseass, really.)
However, the end of section two says, "[M]ere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
This seems to indicate that putting the nVidia binaries (or other closed source binaries) on the same LiveCD would NOT be a violation of the GPL, because it appears to explicitly make such an exception. If we assume that the nvidia binaries don't violate the kernel's license (and I assume they don't, or I'd have heard about it before on Slashdot
It seemed (to me) that what Kororaa's done is twofold. First, they included non-GPL binaries on the same CD as a GPL'ed system. This is explicitly allowed by the GPL. Secondly, they rebuild the kernel (I assume, as that is I think what I've had to do to install them? It's been a while.), modifying the GPLed kernel to link to a non-GPL driver. The result of this is a new kernel, which is GPLed. There appears tp not be any violation in this, if this is what they are doing. (Am I wrong here?)
The GPL requires that, if A is GPLed, and B is not, then A+B must be GPLed. There's no restriction that B must be GPL as well, since all concern is with the license of A. (Whether B's license is violated is a different matter.)
If I have a helper script that downloads and installs these drivers, that's not a violation of the GPL, as the result (a new kernel) can still be GPLed. (Again, we'd have heard a lot of noise if this were NOT the case.) If I have said helper script, it doesn't matter whether the origin of the non-GPLed drivers are on the same media (CD) or different (internet), per the exception in GPL section 2.
If I make the boot script, that does NOT change the licenseability of it. It can still do its work, and include licenses where needed, etc. After all, we don't get shown the licenses for everything we install or run on a LiveCD, why would this be any different?
Now, this all depends on the result of installing a non-GPLed driver still being considered GPL-able. Now that I think about that assumption more, I might be wrong -- if a user installs it on his own system, the GPL doesn't even apply since he isn't distributing it... so I guess the question is whether the GPL can apply to the kernel after it's been rebuilt to include the non-GPL drivers. I don't see anything in the GPL that indicates that it COULDN'T be considered GPLed... what's the license of the nVidia drivers say about that?
Yes, but if you do that it's not APT anymore because it's not automatic.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
that's my take (and I was a paralegal in a DA's office for two years, and I researched for prosecuting criminally some cases of copyright infringement):
/influenced/ by the contents of iostream): this binary is not a derivative work, it _is_ hello.cc for all copyright purposes. It is IMHO _not_ a derivative work on a particular iostream implementation, nor on the compiler. Especially because, the way it is written, it could be compiled by any ANSI-compliant C++ compiler and it could be using any of multiple ANSI-compliant STL implementations.
* a binary is EXACTLY in the same "copyright state" as the sum of the lines of source code that are included on it *
what does that mean? suppose the following program was non-trivial enough to be eligible to copyright protection (it is NOT):
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(int, char**) {
cout << "Hi, Humberto!\n";
return 0;
}
when I compile this (w/o --static on the command line), I get a binary that is more or less this way:
** binary executable header **
** entries for the fixups of "__init_all_libraries", "std::cout", and "std::ostream& std::ostream::operator<<(const char *)", for resolution at load-time **
** the machine code for main, like this pseudo-assembly:
_1: bytes "Hi, Humberto", #10
_main: load value r1, "std::cout"
load immediate address r2, _1
call "std::ostream& std::ostream::operator<<(const char *)"
load immediate value r1, 0
return
**
ALL of those parts are translated automatically, and without any intellectual involvement from a person, from the information in hello.cc (somewhat
The fact that it was (for instance) compiled with g++ could only affect its license if g++'s license stated "all the binaries generated with g++ must be licensed with such and such terms otherwise g++ license is revoked retroactively" etc etc. And it does NOT. And more -- the GPL states clearly in its text that it does not want to control USAGE of the software, but only copying and creation of derivative works (it even states "derivative works under copyright law" on its most confusing paragraph).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Wireless Chip vendors have to answer to the FCC. Officially releasing the specifications for their chips, especially the bit that sets the frequencies, could potentially get them in hot water with Uncle Charlie.
I agree that trade secret is a weak excuse though.
This is exactly the type of crap that will discourage commercial vendors from providing drivers. Binary drivers are better than no drivers, so pick your battles very carefully.
Jump on someone who grossly violates GPL (ie: using GPL'd code to produce a commercial product)... don't waste everyone's time with benign whining like this. It does nothing for anyone.
That's directed at whomever blew the Chicken Little "whistle" about the "Sky is falling!"
well, ignoring the fact that you call anyone who disagrees with you a name as a form of argument, we can examine this more in depth:
I can make totally GPL compliant code for a linux kernel module that totally breaks the kernel and causes crashes and destruction. I hardly think this is what Stallman and others had in mind with the GPL, as you claim.
Stallman created the GPL in order to prevent closed-source software from benefiting from open-source code. The argument is whether a binary driver benefits (i.e. incorporates in some meaningful way to create a "derivative work", which is the legal underpinning here) or if it just merely interfaces in such a way where it cannot possibly be construed as incorporating functionality. My opinion is that the answer is no and that creating a driver that uses an interface is not the same as incorporating code. The drivers do not benefit from knowledge of the interface, they only use it to function within the system.
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
Please, show me how the nvidia driver is substantially similar to any portion of the Linux kernel.
Copyright law covers your 'storyline' scenario with a test as to whether the works are 'substantially similar'.
Look, if this theory held any water when it came to software, then SCO probably should triumph with its claims that Linux is unlawfully derived from UNIX.
Methods and Concepts are not protectable under copyright law, and it is only the expressions themselves that are tested for substantial similarity.
You can't sue someone for copyright infringement and win where you cannot show that their work is substantially similar to yours, and where 'Methods and Concepts' are publically known, such as with pretty much all of UNIX, as shown in the SCO case, in the absence of literal copying you have zero chance of prevailing on this.
If you literally cut and paste code from Linux, or code from Linux gets included during the process of linking, you could certainly show derivation and substantial similarity, but where you cannot, i'm afraid you can't use this argument.
If this is true, why does Linux not infringe on the copyright of various UNIX systems. They way they work - their 'storylines' are very similar indeed.
Surely all manufacturers whose peripherals Linux supports would have standing to sue the OSS driver developers because the OSS drivers work in a substantially similar way?
This is what SCO contends, in part of their case against IBM and it is very clear the only legal leg they have (and it is very shaky indeed) is a contract clause.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
"You still need a method for it to interface with the kernel if want to use it with Linux ..."
You can make all the technical abstraction you want, it just changes from a direct dependency to an inderect dependency.
Dependency is a legal term when talking about copyright, creating technical abstractions doesnt change the legal state.
Its not a technical issue, its a legal one.
And i may as well point out another "typo" of yours, when you say
"However, parts of it are not derivative of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel"
The means by which it was designed is a patent issue, not a copyright one.
You sound a bit overconfident.
So this magical "shim" you talk about, can i apply the same concept to books ?
If i were to write a book called "The Lord of of necklaces", about 9 magical necklaces etc etc could i create a shim around the book "The Lord of the rings"
If stuck some eatra bits before and after the my Barry Manilow mp3's could i distribute the result under my own terms ?
Im not convinced at all that "shim" is tried and true legal term.
All you Linux folks still think we are all stuck in the 1980s, when hardware companies were small, and most hardware was simple bit twiddling with a minimalistic software layer.
Specs back in the day were free (for the most part) because there was nothing exceptional about any one computing platform. You had many different processor platforms, many different busses, all competing for your money with very little diffeence in performance and capability. It is no surprise that developers released full specs, both to make customers happy, and to encourage other developers to improve on the platform.
But today, we have a specialized computer industry. Gone are the myriad of user-level busses...what's left is PCI, AGP and PCIe, all thoroughly-documented standards. Gone are the simple expansion cards adding new features - all the features %90 of users need can be found integrated on a small low-cost motherboard.
And what about those users who actually USE expansion cards? They get them for VERY specialized purposes - a high-speed wired or wireless interconnect. Hardware sound co-processing, or extra sound channels. High-bandwidth TV tuners or video capture cards. High-performance 3D acceleration.
Unfortunately, these specialized and powerful cards come at a price: good performance requires trade secrets, copyrighted functionality licensed from other conglomerates, and optimized drivers. Why build your own PCIe interface from scratch when CompanyX will sell you one for 3 cents per port? Why design your own lossless texture compression routine when CompanyY SPECIALIZES in it? Why reinvent the wheel interfacing to your GDDR3 memory when dozens of companies have already designed high-performance crossbar memory switches? All these features are suddenly worth good money, both in the hardware your company sells, and in the licenses.
Also, all you Linux Open-Source zealots forget one additional thing: the DRIVER is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the modern expansion card, ESPECIALLY with video cards. If the driver is not in PEAK performance, the user is more likely to notice than, say, a USB2 driver, or a network driver. For ATI and Nvidia, the driver IS the company. What if the open-source community can't meet the performance levels of closed source drivers? Then ATI and Nvidia look bad. What if the open-source community starts to think it can build a better graphics card, instead of making drivers for Nvidia and ATI, since they already know how it works?
You want to insist ATI and Nvidia share their specifications, just to please a tiny market? That's like Coke giving away their secret formula so tribes of the Amazon rainforest can make their own. You tell me how long it takes for %100 perfect knockoffs to hit the street and kill Coke's marketshare. By my last look, it takes an awful lot of time and effort just to design a RELATIVLEY SIMPLE graphics processor. Why give your potential competitors an INCREDIBLE edge?
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Why does APT have to be fully automatic? That seems a silly restriction if that's all that's preventing it from being used for proprietary software.
I'm having trouble understanding why you're pointing at FC5 here.
If it's Gtk+ apps that now mandate Cairo, then all distros everywhere will be having the same problem if they use the latest Gtk+.
Well if you'll notice, FreeBSD Exists, and is becoming a very nice OS; the BSD license doesn't have all the bullshit in it. The world would have been better off without GPL. Free Software would abound, and a valid open source alternative to windows would have been created. (Companies wouldn't be scared of the BSD license if the GPL didn't confuse everyone!)
Huh? Being automatic the entire reason APT exists; if it's not automatic it's identical to dpkg (AFAIK, anyway -- I use Gentoo, not Debian).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And you sound thoroughly clueless, but I think that's now well established.
So this magical "shim" you talk about, can i apply the same concept to books ?
In what way is it magical, and what GPL'd books have you been reading?
?If stuck some eatra bits before and after the my Barry Manilow mp3's could i distribute the result under my own terms ?
No, because it's not software and it's not distributed under the GLP.
Back under your bridge...
Problems with MP3 has to do with patents, not copyright and the GPL.
I'm sorry, but perhaps you may have misread my post.
Red Hat doesn't even distribute basic mp3 players because they might violate someones license
Patents are licensed, correct? I mean when a ocmpany sues another over patent infringement, if they settle they are purchasing a license for the patent correct?
Please correct me if I have my terminology wrong, but this is my understanding.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Maybe they don't anymore, but RHEL used to be full of closed source tools to run on the OS. Suse's YAST used to be in this category, and I know RedHat had their own stuff.
My mistake, RHEL does have a few closed source tools. But very few, and all distributed with legal licenses to do so. These tools include java, realplayer and adobe acrobat.
I was correct that Fedora does not include any closed source packages.
Red Hat has, however, release everything they own or buy. Even Netscape Directory is being released as oepn source (Fedora Directory). Definitely not in violation of the GPL.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
All the more reason to use a BSD license, so that you can package drivers...
a violation of NVIDIA's license, rather than the GPL?
Everyone that supports Kororaa on this should donate a dollar to them via pay pal. I did...and I feel great! Payment Details Total Amount:$1.00 USD Currency:US Dollars Transaction ID:9423483935Z Quantity:1 Item/Product Name:Support the Kororaa Project! Buyer:Your Mother
Kernel modules take care of this problem quite well. If a proprietary part of the kernel stops working you just don't load it. It's pretty simple.
If you don't include basic stuff, even if it's "proprietary", like video drivers then your OS will definitely be years behind.
Is it a violation if the person who puts said closed source module in a distro just doesn't give a damn and ignores their threatening letters? The hell are they going to do? ooh.. a lawsuit! Who gives a fuck?
Everyone needs to realize if they ignore the licenses then they don't work.
Unless you can come up with some weird cause of action, the only way I know of to enforce the GPL would be to contribute a reasonably nontrivial piece of code to the Kernel (and a piece that would be used in their binary version). At that point they would be violating your copyright and you could go after them.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The decision to mandate Cairo was taken by GTK maintainer Owen Taylor... a Red Hat developer. It had more to do with Red Hat's corporate agenda than users. Users got ass-fucked
The GNOME developers spent ages optimising GNOME, only for the GTK developers to step in, yet again, and steal it all with their technical incompetence. Every version of GNOME dependent on GTK versions post-Cairo are crippled and slow.
"No, because it's not software and it's not distributed under the GLP."
Copyright law is not specific to software, the same concepts should be able to be applied to other forms of expression.
Copyright is law, not code, i dont think you really understand this point.
This is absolutely basic copyright law, and anyone who yells "but the GPL says..." or "but Linus says..." are missing the point
Agreed. Just because My Program calls Your Program doesn't necessarily mean there's any derviation. That's all FSF Propaganda.
The shim itself is a derivitive of the linux kernal, therefore legally speaking it must be distributed under the GPL.
There is no "shim" for the Nvidia Windows driver, but it is not dervative of the Windows kernel. The same would apply to Linux if there was a stable driver ABI. If not, I'd like to hear why. The shim itself is an implementation detail and might not even be copyrightable at all. Nvidia's Indpendant Work is still calling into Linux shim or no.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
So instead we should reward ignorant behaviour and conclusions?
I prefer not to deal with people that can't see further than FUD. If they think likewise, makes it only more easier for me..
If you're gonna be scared of FUD and flashy headlines, you're not gonna stay in the game for long. Just look at MS, they've got more "bad PR" than any other company, yet they're litterally thriving on people's love-hate relationship with them.
Truth will always come forth one time or another. You need a thick skin to live, but when you really don't care what people think, you're free to really LIVE.
But when you're scared of FUD, you've already surrendered to FUD before the very beginning of the battle. People's opinions change all the time. So that's why any PR is good PR, if you only have deep enough skin not to be put off by it.
Crying about FUD only give more attention to the FUD...
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
My take on it is that it's big "selling" point is its ability to smartly manage things like package dependencies, downloading etc. This means that you don't have to go through loads of different manual steps (and loads of working out dependencies) to install something.
It may be slightly less smooth to type 'y' every now and then when an EULA pops up, but to get all of the other benefits of something like apt it would seem a fair compromise to me.
It would also be harder to get the other benefits, as well. With Free Software, there is (generally) a standard set of steps that the program can go through to install it (download, unpack, ./configure, make, make install), and (to an extent) the Debian package maintainers can modify the upstream program to conform better to the way apt/dpkg works. Proprietary software tends to have non-standard installation steps (i.e., have to use a binary install program, have to go to a web site and click "I agree" on a form button to download (e.g. Java), have to have the CD in the drive (e.g. games), have to plug in a hardware dongle, etc), and the Debian maintainers can't change it to conform because it's proprietary. it makes it a lot harder to maintain both apt/dpkg and the packages themselves.
Also, because it's proprietary, proprietary software tends to require specific versions of dependencies, which doesn't play well with systems like Debian or Gentoo (especially Gentoo) where all the software (including system libraries and such) can be updated independently instead of as an "entire OS upgrade." And even if you just install the proprietary software's required library version in parallel with the ones used by the rest of the system, apt isn't suited to managing that kind of thing.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I doubt it would happen, but I have thought about the idea of a company who creates this distro, which has a complete dev tool suite for game creation, which runs as a LiveCD. A developer could install it to his hard drive, and develop games for it. Then, once he (or a company) has the code hammered out, the dev system could dump the project to a Live CD/DVD image, which could then be burned (or pressed) and sold. The company that creates the distro assesses and specifies certain hardware profiles known to run the distro perfectly (motherboard, cpu, ram, network, hard drive, video card, sound card, controllers, etc). Others could use those profiles to build their own custom gaming "consoles"/"rigs". Others could include companies (maybe the original company could sell a "reference platform" or something as well to those who don't want to build thier own). The company could also say "may run on other specifications but not warranted to do so", etc - so if someone wants to drop it on his PC or other platform, and it runs (to whatever extent), they wouldn't be liable, while at the same time others could claim their games run on the "PC platform".
This is what Indrema and others should have done, instead of tried to make a console system first...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Anonymous Coward called Angel--Fr@gzill@
:" Your account is currently prohibited from posting. Please contact osnews-crew@osnews.com if you have any questions comment"
"OS NEWS" WebSite "Dictatorial" measures taken in the Kororaa-proprietary NVIDIA and ATI kernel modules controversy over violation of the General Public License (GPL)"
It is sad to say that a WebSite that some people think is related somehow to Open Source software could have, in my view, such an IRESPONSABLE, DICTATORIAL, and FASCIST behaviour towards the readers and towards the Open souce movement!
All this is the cause of "Thom Holwerda", one of the staff members of the "OS NEWS" Web Site. This guy has had already many angry disputes with the readers, as regular readers of the site know.
He shows regurlarly his views on the topics and threads and answser, and act in a very impolite, selfish, insulting and disgraceful way to many that do not agree with his views!
YES, he does all that despite being a member of the staff, and at the same time posting as a reader (whitout any shame for it!), while having the privileges of censuring, banning, not being moderated up or down by the readers, and acting in what I consider, a DICTATORIAL and FASCIST way, to impose his views and to gain notoriety.
His views in serveral ocassions hurt the Open Source movement, I think, but he takes advantage of his "GOD-like" privileges as a staff member, to impose them, and influence in this way other readers!
I obviously think that this is bad...
I posted a comment in the OS NEWS thread over the Kororaa-proprietary NVIDIA and ATI drivers, in wich I exposed this (in a moderate way) and asked "Thom Holwerda" to refrain from behaving in that way...
He answered me in a disgraceful way (as he usually does with other readers that don't see eye to eye with him), and finally, after another answer of mine, and some interventions of some readers he prohibited from posting! I have the next message when I enter a thread in OSNEWS
Some readers posted some comments, more or less, agreeing with me, and what I said about this kind of behaviour. I am talking about the behaviour of "Thom Holwerda" and the "HARM" he does to the OPEN SOURCE software with his attitude, and to the FREEDOM in the internet while abusing and trying to influence whith his antidemocratic methods, taking advantage of his position. I am not talking of the differnen views that anyone cant maintain about Kororaa XGL, or anything...
One guy, though, said simply: "Ban this crackpot, Thom" ( a smart guy? a frind of him?...)
You can follow the thread ind the OSNews website. The main comments are at the end of the thread ( http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14605 ). Anyway, I will write another post here, just after this one, summarizing and 'Pasting" the posts about this attitude.
I do not say that you have to boycot OSNEWS. Anyone can do what he/she wants, but I, personally, will visit OSNews, much less than before, or hardly ever, until I have references of a change of attitude by this guy ("Thom Holwerda"), or until he has been dismissed...
After all there are great WebSites like this one, Slashdot, or Distrowatch etc!
Whatever is your opinion about the Kororaa controversy, if you are for LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM of SPEECH, and RESPECT worldwide, and you care for LINUX and the OPEN SOURCE software, I would encourage YOU to send your views and comments about this behaviour of "Thom Holwerda" to the OSNEWS e-mail ( osnews-crew@osnews.com )or post them in the OSNews Site in a thread, or other sites related to Open source (Here in Slashdot, DistroWatch...) etc.
I am sorry about the kororaa XGL, that I actually love and have. I think is a "Catch 22" situation, as a couple of guys explain very well at the end of the OSNews thread ( There cant be free open drivers, PERIOD By TechGeek; and Very simple By sorpigal), or as some have exposed, also very well, here in this "Kororaa XGL" Slashdot thread.