We dont need many games, we need a few good ones, AAA titles.
Actually, I've had a huge amount of fun with some very obscure indie games. With Humble Bundle you can try out a huge stack of them for "pay what you want".
Even if Linux managed to double the number of users, the corresponding drop would barely register on the Windows side of things.
Things have changed now that vendors, particularly Steam, have realized that staying tied to the Windows ecosystem means clear and present danger of being crushed by Microsoft. So now, demographics isn't the main driver, it's vendors self-preservation instinct, a powerful force.
And even with the gamer share Linux has (not counting android!) it's still many millions of users, easily enough to pay back the porting effort. Now, it's less of shocker to see AAA titles (e.g., Talos Principle) released simultaneously on Linux.
Blu-Ray is starting to take on the ignoble cachet of 8 tract tape. Basically, the experience is so customer-unfriendly they torpedoed the whole category. Laggy, crappy Java menus with stone age navigation, way too slow startup, way too many trailers, no much "can't skip" crap, overbearing copyright threats, etc etc. The whole piece of crap concept from Sony is effectively just a placeholder while digital distribution, legal and otherwise, takes over. Physically, what a waste of space, and that fragile plastic always goes bad sooner or later. Optical rom is so last century.
But then you have to put up with Windows, which is broken and clumsy by comparison, and seems to be more interested in the welfare of Microsoft than the user. Never mind still a malware magnet and full of crapware and adware.
I have never heard any kernel developer state that the intent of non-GPL symbol exports is to encourage GPL infringement, or distribution of binary-only modules.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Linus isn't "programmers", Linus is just one programmer of thousands who hold copyright in the kernel. In a legal sense, what Linus posted is "hearsay", and arguably a nice demonstration that he might be right when he claims programmers making lousy lawyers. As far as I know, intent ("willful infringement") may matter in computing copyright damages but not in deciding whether infringement actually occurred. Keep pursuing your theories about intent by all means, I doubt you will find anything of value down that path but somebody needs to do it.
What part of my argument is incorrect? EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(foo) means that, technically, the kernel will only expose "foo" to modules that declare a GPL-compatible license, and that, legally, the kernel developers think using that symbol means a kernel module is a derivative work of the kernel
There's your incorrect argument. You don't know what kernel developers actually think, and further, you don't know how it would affect legal standing even if you did. See "thought crime".
Well, the reason for that is that the filesystems make different tradeoffs. ext4 has journalling, but no means to detect corruption of data blocks. It's faster because it's simple and less safe.
I don't know about that. Ext4 has in fact saved me countless times and never failed me, whereas the net is full of anecdotes like this where the complexity of Zfs apparently becomes its undoing.
ZFS is slower because it provides additional features, such as block-level checksumming or hashing... ZFS can however scale to be vastly faster than ext4 as you add more disks.
Where's your evidence of that? I don't know of any. Ext4 does just fine with big md arrays. Anyway, remember, this thread is about a car analogy. So... you scaled up the car by adding more wheels? Seems like we need to move on to a train analogy.
a kernel module is not a derivative work unless it contains some significant portion of kernel source code above and beyond any data types and function names contained in the headers. Galoob v. Nintendo made this pretty clear
Whaaat??? Galoob v. Nintendo did nothing of the sort, the court found that a "product that allowed users to alter codes transmitted between video gaming console and game cartridge did not infringe console manufacturer’s exclusive right, under federal copyright law, to create derivative works". Your interpretation is wildly creative.
A central point that will be argued is whether a work that relies substantially on the interfaces of the Linux kernel is a derivative work. Though I haven't researched it deeply, my impression is, that's a pretty solid yes.
I would suggest this article from the software pluralism site on University of Washington School of Law's website. After you read it, I think you'll come to the same conclusion—that a filesystem that exists on other platforms cannot possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a derivative work of the Linux kernel, and thus cannot be tainted by the kernel's GPL license in any way, shape, or form. As a result, the Software Freedom Conservancy's conclusions are likely in error.
The arguments there did not persuade me, and neither did your presumptive conclusion. You're clearly aware of the importance of the derivation question, but imho, your interpretation is incorrect and likely to fail. It's enough for only part of the work to be derivative to constitute a violation.
Your link provides little in the way of case law and a lot in the way of speculation. You might consider doing a little more research yourself, perhaps focusing on the GPL paragraph 5 observation that "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works". Canonical proposes to distribute the Zfs binary and Linux binary together. Their argument that the GPL v2 grants them the right to do this is very leaky indeed.
In any case, settling the question will be a source of endless entertainment. After all this work, we deserve some entertainment, don't we?
I think the distinction expressly codifies what parts of the kernel are generic "kernel" interfaces and what parts are Linux-specific (and thus imply derivative work status).
Incorrect argument. Many, in fact, the vast majority of the GPL symbols are clearly Linux-specific. So the distinction between GPL and non-GPL symbols tells you nothing about whether a work is derivative.
Otherwise there would be no reason to make that distinction, or to allow modules to declare non-GPL licence status.
Creating discomfort for GPL violators is a perfectly valid reason to make that distinction. It's very cost-effective.
Walling off non-GPL-compliant modules from a good part of the kernel is a rather direct expression of disapproval, don't you think? This in no way blesses the practices of violators, it is simply a pragmatic way to decrease their comfort. Tainting is in the same category.
So what if loading a kernel module makes a single binary? Nobody is distributing the combined binary.
Somebody up above said "no one is combining Linux + ZFS into a single binary", which is just stupid because somebody is obviously doing exactly that, as I pointed out. I did not comment on the actual issue, but I will now. The issue, if you've being paying attention, is that Canonical is distributing a derived work of the Linux kernel that they do not have the right to distribute. Don't argue with me about that, I'm just the messenger. If you have your own opinions about what constitutes a derived work or what rights Canonical actually has in this matter, then RTFA.
Then maybe go read this page. Here's an excerpt: "U.S.D.J. Scheindlin found Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff"
So far, the GPL has stood up in court every time it has been tested, which by now is quite a few times all around the world, including the good old US of A. Most violators aren't dumb enough to take it to court, they either get into compliance sensibly or settle early.
Law or no law, facts are facts. I hope you don't try to defend further your indefensible position that facts are irrelevant when technological matters become legal matters.
You seem to be unaware that in every case where the GPL has been litigated, it has been upheld. You talk about common law, surely you understand how this rich body of legal precedent has buttressed the strength of the GPL. As for estoppel, it's not enough for some of the copyright holders to make a habit of looking the other way. All of them would need to, and that simply hasn't happened.
Nonsense. Loading a module ("linking it") into the kernel makes a single binary, that is unambiguous.
Bull.
Assuming one is not actively using ZFS and removed all traces of the library and its tools, will the system work the same as before?
If so (and this is readily apparent), then the library is separate. If it is under a separate license and this is understood by the user/admin at the time of install, who cares? I don't.
I'm pretty sure that if you look at the several other file systems that have been supported by Linux over the years, more than one have had different license terms.
Wow, I'm just floored by the lack of understanding I see here. Look, a Linux kernel module is just a chunk of memory saved on disk along with some information needed to fix up the bytes that need to change in order to run it at some particular place in memory. To load it, Linux just copies the contents of the module from and does the necessary fixups. There is no question whatsoever that the result of that is a single binary. That's just basic computer science. Very very basic. Very very very basic.
As for whether you care or not, that's entirely up to you. But if you plan to make a career of distributing software in violation of license agreements, good luck to you, you'll need it.
And as for whether all the other filesystems distributed as part of Linux comply with the GPL, yes, every single one of them does. Either by being licensed explicitly under the GPL, or licensed under a GPL-compatible license.
Slashdot Mirror
We dont need many games, we need a few good ones, AAA titles.
Actually, I've had a huge amount of fun with some very obscure indie games. With Humble Bundle you can try out a huge stack of them for "pay what you want".
many developers either aren't convinced yet, or need more help, or something.
For many of them, the reality of Vulkan is all the help they needed.
But if your goal is entertainment, chances are, there's more than enough there.
Witcher 2, Talos Principle, XCOM 2, DOTA 2, lots more... way more AAA titles than I have time to play, good enough for me.
Even if Linux managed to double the number of users, the corresponding drop would barely register on the Windows side of things.
Things have changed now that vendors, particularly Steam, have realized that staying tied to the Windows ecosystem means clear and present danger of being crushed by Microsoft. So now, demographics isn't the main driver, it's vendors self-preservation instinct, a powerful force.
And even with the gamer share Linux has (not counting android!) it's still many millions of users, easily enough to pay back the porting effort. Now, it's less of shocker to see AAA titles (e.g., Talos Principle) released simultaneously on Linux.
Good grief, it's no way near as clumsy as Linux for computer graphics or software development in general.
Gee, you better hand in your geek card. Windows has got practically zero automation, being a windows developer means being a click-monkey.
Blu-Ray is starting to take on the ignoble cachet of 8 tract tape. Basically, the experience is so customer-unfriendly they torpedoed the whole category. Laggy, crappy Java menus with stone age navigation, way too slow startup, way too many trailers, no much "can't skip" crap, overbearing copyright threats, etc etc. The whole piece of crap concept from Sony is effectively just a placeholder while digital distribution, legal and otherwise, takes over. Physically, what a waste of space, and that fragile plastic always goes bad sooner or later. Optical rom is so last century.
What's the issue with KDE on RHEL 7.2? It looks like a thing.
But then you have to put up with Windows, which is broken and clumsy by comparison, and seems to be more interested in the welfare of Microsoft than the user. Never mind still a malware magnet and full of crapware and adware.
Also their developer network, distribution network and own catalog.
I have never heard any kernel developer state that the intent of non-GPL symbol exports is to encourage GPL infringement, or distribution of binary-only modules.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Linus isn't "programmers", Linus is just one programmer of thousands who hold copyright in the kernel. In a legal sense, what Linus posted is "hearsay", and arguably a nice demonstration that he might be right when he claims programmers making lousy lawyers. As far as I know, intent ("willful infringement") may matter in computing copyright damages but not in deciding whether infringement actually occurred. Keep pursuing your theories about intent by all means, I doubt you will find anything of value down that path but somebody needs to do it.
What part of my argument is incorrect? EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(foo) means that, technically, the kernel will only expose "foo" to modules that declare a GPL-compatible license, and that, legally, the kernel developers think using that symbol means a kernel module is a derivative work of the kernel
There's your incorrect argument. You don't know what kernel developers actually think, and further, you don't know how it would affect legal standing even if you did. See "thought crime".
What about my train analogy? Derailed.
Well, the reason for that is that the filesystems make different tradeoffs. ext4 has journalling, but no means to detect corruption of data blocks. It's faster because it's simple and less safe.
I don't know about that. Ext4 has in fact saved me countless times and never failed me, whereas the net is full of anecdotes like this where the complexity of Zfs apparently becomes its undoing.
ZFS is slower because it provides additional features, such as block-level checksumming or hashing... ZFS can however scale to be vastly faster than ext4 as you add more disks.
Where's your evidence of that? I don't know of any. Ext4 does just fine with big md arrays. Anyway, remember, this thread is about a car analogy. So... you scaled up the car by adding more wheels? Seems like we need to move on to a train analogy.
a kernel module is not a derivative work unless it contains some significant portion of kernel source code above and beyond any data types and function names contained in the headers. Galoob v. Nintendo made this pretty clear
Whaaat??? Galoob v. Nintendo did nothing of the sort, the court found that a "product that allowed users to alter codes transmitted between video gaming console and game cartridge did not infringe console manufacturer’s exclusive right, under federal copyright law, to create derivative works". Your interpretation is wildly creative.
A central point that will be argued is whether a work that relies substantially on the interfaces of the Linux kernel is a derivative work. Though I haven't researched it deeply, my impression is, that's a pretty solid yes.
I would suggest this article from the software pluralism site on University of Washington School of Law's website. After you read it, I think you'll come to the same conclusion—that a filesystem that exists on other platforms cannot possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a derivative work of the Linux kernel, and thus cannot be tainted by the kernel's GPL license in any way, shape, or form. As a result, the Software Freedom Conservancy's conclusions are likely in error.
The arguments there did not persuade me, and neither did your presumptive conclusion. You're clearly aware of the importance of the derivation question, but imho, your interpretation is incorrect and likely to fail. It's enough for only part of the work to be derivative to constitute a violation.
Your link provides little in the way of case law and a lot in the way of speculation. You might consider doing a little more research yourself, perhaps focusing on the GPL paragraph 5 observation that "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works". Canonical proposes to distribute the Zfs binary and Linux binary together. Their argument that the GPL v2 grants them the right to do this is very leaky indeed.
In any case, settling the question will be a source of endless entertainment. After all this work, we deserve some entertainment, don't we?
[1] Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117a(1)
Eek, a straw man that conflates copying with derivation. Let's just forget about that.
I think the distinction expressly codifies what parts of the kernel are generic "kernel" interfaces and what parts are Linux-specific (and thus imply derivative work status).
Incorrect argument. Many, in fact, the vast majority of the GPL symbols are clearly Linux-specific. So the distinction between GPL and non-GPL symbols tells you nothing about whether a work is derivative.
Otherwise there would be no reason to make that distinction, or to allow modules to declare non-GPL licence status.
Creating discomfort for GPL violators is a perfectly valid reason to make that distinction. It's very cost-effective.
You seem to be suffering from a case of zero research.
So explain EXPORT_SYMBOL vs EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Walling off non-GPL-compliant modules from a good part of the kernel is a rather direct expression of disapproval, don't you think? This in no way blesses the practices of violators, it is simply a pragmatic way to decrease their comfort. Tainting is in the same category.
So what if loading a kernel module makes a single binary? Nobody is distributing the combined binary.
Somebody up above said "no one is combining Linux + ZFS into a single binary", which is just stupid because somebody is obviously doing exactly that, as I pointed out. I did not comment on the actual issue, but I will now. The issue, if you've being paying attention, is that Canonical is distributing a derived work of the Linux kernel that they do not have the right to distribute. Don't argue with me about that, I'm just the messenger. If you have your own opinions about what constitutes a derived work or what rights Canonical actually has in this matter, then RTFA.
Then maybe go read this page. Here's an excerpt: "U.S.D.J. Scheindlin found Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff"
So far, the GPL has stood up in court every time it has been tested, which by now is quite a few times all around the world, including the good old US of A. Most violators aren't dumb enough to take it to court, they either get into compliance sensibly or settle early.
Nvidia has been distributing their proprietary drivers this way for well over a decade now.
And this is what they got for that.
Law or no law, facts are facts. I hope you don't try to defend further your indefensible position that facts are irrelevant when technological matters become legal matters.
...you could try relying on the statute of limitations and hope that nobody notices some quiet little misdeed for a sufficient number of years...
You seem to be unaware that in every case where the GPL has been litigated, it has been upheld. You talk about common law, surely you understand how this rich body of legal precedent has buttressed the strength of the GPL. As for estoppel, it's not enough for some of the copyright holders to make a habit of looking the other way. All of them would need to, and that simply hasn't happened.
Nonsense. Loading a module ("linking it") into the kernel makes a single binary, that is unambiguous.
Bull.
Assuming one is not actively using ZFS and removed all traces of the library and its tools, will the system work the same as before?
If so (and this is readily apparent), then the library is separate. If it is under a separate license and this is understood by the user/admin at the time of install, who cares? I don't.
I'm pretty sure that if you look at the several other file systems that have been supported by Linux over the years, more than one have had different license terms.
Wow, I'm just floored by the lack of understanding I see here. Look, a Linux kernel module is just a chunk of memory saved on disk along with some information needed to fix up the bytes that need to change in order to run it at some particular place in memory. To load it, Linux just copies the contents of the module from and does the necessary fixups. There is no question whatsoever that the result of that is a single binary. That's just basic computer science. Very very basic. Very very very basic.
As for whether you care or not, that's entirely up to you. But if you plan to make a career of distributing software in violation of license agreements, good luck to you, you'll need it.
And as for whether all the other filesystems distributed as part of Linux comply with the GPL, yes, every single one of them does. Either by being licensed explicitly under the GPL, or licensed under a GPL-compatible license.
comparing ext4 to zfs is like comparing a pinto to a corvette
Great, a car analogy, just what the world needed. How do you incorporate the fact that Ext4 is in general, faster than Zfs?