Nope, they're not.
They're also possibly breaking the DMCA.
But anyway, click-through "contracts" are a joke
and probably won't hold in court for long.
"Implying that some just because you write code that targets LINUX you must release it as open source."
I never said this, read more carefully.
"by "support" I mean empowering end users to use device"
What's your definition of "use"? I "use" Linux by looking at its source code to find out how it works. I "use" quakeforge by modifying it to learn how to light models more realistically, or to draw more efficiently. When I "use" software, I don't just use it's functionality, I use its code and I use its Freeness.
A very large part -- even if it is a minority -- of people using Linux do so because they want to use a Free Software operating system, not simply because it's better. When proprietary drivers are required for Linux to be useful for a purpose, you are faced with a choice:
a) Don't use the proprietary drivers and suffer
a lack of functionality. b) use them, and cause your OS to become non-free.
In regards to your comment about end users not caring, I agree. I also agree that end users need to stop being end users.
You can't support an open source operating system
with non-Free code. When you're writing a binary
driver for Linux and X, you are not in fact
supporting it.
Example of misuse:
if you were to do file/bin/bash, it would
tell you that it was an ELF binary compiled
for GNU/Linux. This is a blatant misuse, because
a statically linked binary need not depend on
anything other than the kernel, Linux, itself.
Re:So they stick to the new license...
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Calling an entire system "Linux" is just incorrect. GNU/Linux is a specific term which signifies the combination of the GNU system and the Linux kernel, however, it is also incorrect, as many of the core components of a linux-based system (sysvinit, lilo, fsck, modutils/module-init-tools) are not part of the GNU system, but neither are they part of "Linux".
A bare-bones linux-based system is generally comprised of GNU libc, GNU bash, GNU fileutils, sysvinit, module-init-tools, fsck, LILO (or alternately, GRUB), some sort of packaging system (optional), and Linux itself.
in some cases, most of those tools are replaced by something like busybox, in which case the system contains no strictly GNU programs at all.
What part of that can be considered the operating system? If you go by what is required to make programs work, then it's just the kernel, a shell (whether it be ash, bash, csh...), and a glibc.
If the program doesn't use the shell, that's not needed, but it might. If the program is statically linked, it doesn't need glibc, but most programs aren't.
If you say "I use linux", you are correct. If you say "my machine runs linux", that's right. If you say "linux is a better OS than windows", you might realize that most of what makes the system what you would consider an OS is not, in fact, part of Linux.
Uh... you get to recompile DRM with every kernel
upgrade, as well as ALSA, i2c etc and just about any
other kernel module.
nvidia's driver isn't unique in this.
Quakeworld has been GPL for a few years, and it's
still a quite entertaining game.
For a good *nix client (SDL based so should be
easily portable), try the quakeforge project
(http://www.quakeforge.net/)
The shareware quake game data is available some-
where on id's ftp (ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/)
And if you can't bear having just the shareware
levels, you can get a free mod such as Team
Fortress (http://www.planetfortress.com has files). Otherwise, the commercial version costs
like 10 bucks.
I understand it as this:
if I write code for a GPL'd project, *I* can later
(as later as I want) release just THAT code under
MIT license, because that part is still my code
to do with what *I* wish.
However, when it is distributed WITH the GPL'd
project, it's GPL'd. That's the "viral" part,
a GPL'd project can only contain GPL'd components.
In order to contribute code to a GPL project, you
have to relicense the code under the GPL, but
*only for that project*, it can still be distro'd
seperately under any license you want.
Therefore, a "GPL-compatible" license is a license
that a) contains no restrictions that the GPL
doesn't and b) Allows code to be relicensed under
the GPL.
The confusion comes when someone contributes
code to a GPL'd project that was also released
under MITL. Can you take that code out of the
GPL'd project and use it as if it were MIT
licensed? Some say no, some say yes, few know
for sure.
To answer your second question, if a linux
contributor decided to release their code
seperately under the MIT license, they could.
However, when distributed as part of the kernel,
it remains GPL.
What if a proprietary fork becomes more
popular and makes your version unimportant, hijacked
for reasons of greed?
Would you like it if your company took your code
verbatim, made it a little flashier and sold it
under say.. the windows XP license, then brushed
the fact that you wrote it under the rug?
This is not an advertising clause. It merely
requires the addition of what could be construed
as a copyright notice into the "End-user documentation"
If you consider the program's own output "End-user
documentation", the GPL already provides for this!
That's wrong.
If I put my own code into some GPL'd project, the
code by itself remains mine and I'm free to use it
however I want.
I am not however allowed to release it under a
more-than-GPL license TOGETHER with the project
it was written for. Understand, rubberband?
This is absurd.
Making the GPL (not GPL license, mister repetetively
redundant) "compatible" with the BSD license would
involve removing most of what makes it the GPL.
the MIT / BSD licenses and the GPL are intentionally
and irrevocably different.
I'd like to see assurance that Red Hat will stay
open source.
With their recent inclusion of non-OSS licensed
software and their not-so-recent attempted
sidestepping of the GPL re: support licenses, I'm
not so assured.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh, I mean we're famous enough...
What about music that's free, sir?
What the fuck? How is this deregulation kind sir, as regulation is being increased?
Fark had this at least a day before you guys :)
Nope, they're not. They're also possibly breaking the DMCA. But anyway, click-through "contracts" are a joke and probably won't hold in court for long.
You're being a little confusing... do you mean Free Software (FSF definition) or freeware?
"Implying that some just because you write code that targets LINUX you must release it as open source."
I never said this, read more carefully.
"by "support" I mean empowering end users to use device"
What's your definition of "use"? I "use" Linux by
looking at its source code to find out how it
works. I "use" quakeforge by modifying it to learn
how to light models more realistically, or to
draw more efficiently. When I "use" software, I
don't just use it's functionality, I use its code
and I use its Freeness.
A very large part -- even if it is a minority --
of people using Linux do so because they want to
use a Free Software operating system, not simply
because it's better. When proprietary drivers
are required for Linux to be useful for a purpose,
you are faced with a choice:
a) Don't use the proprietary drivers and suffer
a lack of functionality.
b) use them, and cause your OS to become non-free.
In regards to your comment about end users not
caring, I agree. I also agree that end users need
to stop being end users.
You can't support an open source operating system with non-Free code. When you're writing a binary driver for Linux and X, you are not in fact supporting it.
Example of misuse: if you were to do file /bin/bash, it would
tell you that it was an ELF binary compiled
for GNU/Linux. This is a blatant misuse, because
a statically linked binary need not depend on
anything other than the kernel, Linux, itself.
Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Calling an entire
system "Linux" is just incorrect. GNU/Linux is a
specific term which signifies the combination of
the GNU system and the Linux kernel, however, it
is also incorrect, as many of the core components
of a linux-based system (sysvinit, lilo, fsck,
modutils/module-init-tools) are not part of the
GNU system, but neither are they part of "Linux".
A bare-bones linux-based system is
generally comprised of GNU libc, GNU bash, GNU
fileutils, sysvinit, module-init-tools, fsck,
LILO (or alternately, GRUB), some sort of
packaging system (optional), and Linux itself.
in some cases, most of those tools are replaced
by something like busybox, in which case the
system contains no strictly GNU programs at all.
What part of that can be considered the operating
system? If you go by what is required to make
programs work, then it's just the kernel, a shell
(whether it be ash, bash, csh...), and a glibc.
If the program doesn't use the shell, that's not
needed, but it might. If the program is
statically linked, it doesn't need glibc, but
most programs aren't.
If you say "I use linux", you are correct.
If you say "my machine runs linux", that's right.
If you say "linux is a better OS than windows",
you might realize that most of what makes the
system what you would consider an OS is not,
in fact, part of Linux.
Uh... you get to recompile DRM with every kernel upgrade, as well as ALSA, i2c etc and just about any other kernel module. nvidia's driver isn't unique in this.
Quakeworld has been GPL for a few years, and it's still a quite entertaining game. For a good *nix client (SDL based so should be easily portable), try the quakeforge project (http://www.quakeforge.net/) The shareware quake game data is available some- where on id's ftp (ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/) And if you can't bear having just the shareware levels, you can get a free mod such as Team Fortress (http://www.planetfortress.com has files). Otherwise, the commercial version costs like 10 bucks.
TFC is also not free software and not ported to anything other than windows. and btw, Snipers ruin the game.
I understand it as this: if I write code for a GPL'd project, *I* can later (as later as I want) release just THAT code under MIT license, because that part is still my code to do with what *I* wish. However, when it is distributed WITH the GPL'd project, it's GPL'd. That's the "viral" part, a GPL'd project can only contain GPL'd components. In order to contribute code to a GPL project, you have to relicense the code under the GPL, but *only for that project*, it can still be distro'd seperately under any license you want. Therefore, a "GPL-compatible" license is a license that a) contains no restrictions that the GPL doesn't and b) Allows code to be relicensed under the GPL. The confusion comes when someone contributes code to a GPL'd project that was also released under MITL. Can you take that code out of the GPL'd project and use it as if it were MIT licensed? Some say no, some say yes, few know for sure. To answer your second question, if a linux contributor decided to release their code seperately under the MIT license, they could. However, when distributed as part of the kernel, it remains GPL.
What if a proprietary fork becomes more popular and makes your version unimportant, hijacked for reasons of greed? Would you like it if your company took your code verbatim, made it a little flashier and sold it under say.. the windows XP license, then brushed the fact that you wrote it under the rug?
And SELLING a BINARY-ONLY version of the work with minor modifications and disallowing *all* copying/modifying isn't "arbitrary restrictions"?
Who in bob's name modded this +5 interesting? How exactly does the GPL prevent commercial exploitation? gee, redhat must not exist if it does!
This is not an advertising clause. It merely requires the addition of what could be construed as a copyright notice into the "End-user documentation" If you consider the program's own output "End-user documentation", the GPL already provides for this!
That's wrong. If I put my own code into some GPL'd project, the code by itself remains mine and I'm free to use it however I want. I am not however allowed to release it under a more-than-GPL license TOGETHER with the project it was written for. Understand, rubberband?
This is absurd. Making the GPL (not GPL license, mister repetetively redundant) "compatible" with the BSD license would involve removing most of what makes it the GPL. the MIT / BSD licenses and the GPL are intentionally and irrevocably different.
If that's your sig, it's poetically appropriate.
I'd like to see assurance that Red Hat will stay open source. With their recent inclusion of non-OSS licensed software and their not-so-recent attempted sidestepping of the GPL re: support licenses, I'm not so assured.
Linux is ready for the desktop NOW, it's just a matter of who is ready for Desktop Linux.
Isn't it YHBT?
Subject says it all :P