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.
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?
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
...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.
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.
You really have no clue do you.
... Standards and Practices !
Linux was not put together for your convenience.
I'll leave it there as more than one concept may overload your processor.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
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.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.
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."
...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.
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.
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."
Apparently, you are not aware of the difference between open-source(a development model) and free software (the philosopy which the GPL is based upon).
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).
The, as you call it, "open-source spirit" is likely the sole reason to the popularity of linux. To maintain that spirit, efforts is needed to keep software free, because of this, we really need to help free people from their dependence on non-free software. Doing anything else would probably, in the long run, hurt both linux and other free software. For example if one day, these companies would by some reason (like money) suddenly stop developing these very important drivers, the entire linux user-base would be severely hurt.
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.
That's most likely untrue, these companies rely on making hardware, they probably have the resources to reverse-engineer each others software quite easily. Only an idiot would be thankful for something you have to pay lots of money for, a company that doesn't listen to it's customers does not deserve to have them. Thinking long term, they could probably sell even more by releasing free (as in GPL:ed) drivers, or at least specs so that they wouldn't even have to bother. The reason they don't currently do that is probably because they're dumb-greedy corporate zealots.
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 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?
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.
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
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
I question how much better the Matrox G550 is over the Intel Integrated.
The Intel chip is "DX9" capable, which is all that's needed for fancy desktop effects, while the Matrox is the same old stuff they've been churning out since the 20th century.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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
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?