Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||
Freespire 1.0 released
Linspire has announced
the release of "Freespire 1.0," a Linux distribution which, by virtue
of including no end of proprietary drivers and applications, is not exactly
free. "Freespire 1.0 offers users the ability to choose what
software they want installed on their computer, with no limitations or
restrictions placed on that choice. By including 3rd-party proprietary
drivers, codecs and applications software, Freespire is able to provide
better out-of-the-box hardware, file type and multimedia support, such as
MP3, Windows Media, Real, QuickTime, Java, Flash, ATI, nVidia, fonts, WiFi,
and modems."
(Log in to post comments)
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 8:37 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] Didn't Kororaa get shut down for exactly this reason -- distributing ATI/nVidia drivers???
Seems like a clear GPL violation to me ...
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 9:23 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Perhaps this is not the best place to ask this, but it just occured to me. VMware Workstation and NVIDIA's graphics driver both include lots of pre-compiled kernel modules in their installer packages. Are these files not derivative works of the Linux kernel, and as such must they not be distributed under the terms of the GPL, requiring their corresponding source code to be distributed alongside them under the terms of the GPL?
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 9:37 UTC (Wed) by kpower (subscriber, #37136) [Link] This issue has been debated endlessly. Only the "Justice" system can definitively settle this. Some hold the opinion modules are derivative works, while others claim the opposite. Non-GPL compatible modules cannot use kernel hooks/calls that are labeled GPL-Only. As long as these labels are recognized and not used by non-GPL compatible modules, the Kernel Maintainers look the other way.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 9:53 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] That is very interesting. The existance of a subset of kernel calls that are marked as "GPL-only" makes this "proprietary kernel modules are illegal" stance seem somewhat hollow.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 10:05 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] Not really; if my garden has a 'Keep Out' sign on the gate and next door'sdoesn't that doesn't mean everyone's invited to walk across my neighbour's garden. All it means is that my wishes are made explicit, his are not. As far as kernel modules go it's pretty clear that some are themselves derived works, and equally clear that some are not. The AFS modules, which were, I think, one of the earliest cases where this question cropped up, existed before the Linux kernel; they cannot possibly have been derived from it.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 10:01 UTC (Wed) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link] Please note Freespire's emphasis on user choice. Any user is free to use GPL licensed software in any way he chooses, even combined with proprietary or closed-source software that he or anyone else may have written. The GPL restrictions only come into play when software is *distributed*.
With Kororaa, there was no user choice. It *only* worked with proprietary modules. Freespire can rationally be used without proprietary modules, if that's what the user wishes to do. They do make it easy for users to install proprietary modules, but it's no different than what Debian or Fedora do, by placing non-free software in different repositories and requiring users to edit their package source files to download and install it - just easier.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 11:28 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] No. As you say, it's a matter of distribution.
Freespire admits that they *do* distribute these modules. It can be argued that it is probably legal, albeit immoral (Greg KH), to have a way for the user to install a proprietary module from a different source than from where he got the distro/kernel. That's how Fedora does it. (Actually Fedora doesn't do it at all, the Livna project does it, and they are independant of Fedora.)
But if I understand what Freespire is doing, the proprietary drivers are on the same CD as the kernel, and can be installed at the same time. That's clearly distributing them with the kernel.
If Linspire really wants to help the situation in the long run, they will help the Open Graphics Project get the $2 million they need ... or at least help put real pressure on AMD/ATI and nVidia to open their specs.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 12:05 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] Pity the poor shmuck who installed linux and just wants decent graphics. He just wants to run google earth, and play ut2004, not be lectured on the immorality of proprietary drivers. He didn't sign up for a war on nvidia, he just wants to get through his day without too much hassle.
IMHO linux needs to learn better how to play well with others. Sure, in a perfect world, all devices would have open source drivers for linux, but there is something to be said for picking your battles. It would be well if the linux developer community could be more gracious about cooperating with non-gpl vendors.
Just .02 from a long time linux user.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 12:30 UTC (Wed) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] Let's see, the Linux developer community is giving away the product of their labors, asking only that *if* you want to take advantage of that, you do the same. The non-GPL vendors want to take advantage of a new, admittedly small, market (Linux users), but not play by the long-established rules. Exactly who is being ungracious? And I continued to be mystified by the supposed Linux user who "just wants to run google earth, and play ut2004, not be lectured on the immorality of proprietary drivers." Why is such a person using Linux? Why not just use Windows or Mac-OSX?
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 14:54 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > Let's see, the Linux developer community is giving away the product of their labors, asking only that *if* you want to take advantage of that, you do the same.
No problem there, I've been giving the fruit of my labors for years as a beta tester, bug reporter, and occasional patch submitter, and have also contributed to the support of the full time developers by purchasing linux distros for home and enterprise. So your picture of me as a mere taker is incorrect. So, IMHO if the GPL criminalizes me for choosing to install a proprietary driver on my linux system, something is seriously wrong with our definition of freedom.
> The non-GPL vendors want to take advantage of a new, admittedly small, market (Linux users), but not play by the long-established rules. Exactly who is being ungracious?
Well, let's see, according to most civilized norms, a company who provides and frequently updates linux drivers for their hardware, free of charge, for those customers who choose to avail themselves of it, would not normally be vilified for their hard work. Just an impartial observation.
> And I continued to be mystified by the supposed Linux user who "just wants to run google earth, and play ut2004, not be lectured on the immorality of proprietary drivers." Why is such a person using Linux? Why not just use Windows or Mac-OSX?
My obvious question to you is, why on earth would you recommend that such a person use ms windoze? When he uses ms windoze, he feels like a parent crammed into one of those tiny kindergarten desks at open house, and finds it awkward and uncomfortable. Linux is his platform of choice, for the power and comfort that it affords him. He's a bit befuddled at your preaching that he shouldn't be running nvidia drivers. The message he is getting from you, is that linux is not to be used for anything cool, fun or interesting. Incredibly, you appear to be suggesting that he forget about linux, and use ms windoze for anything requiring decent performance or fancy graphics.
Your intentions may be noble, but I have to ask, do you really wish to relegate linux to unseen nooks and crannies and surrender the desktop to some crappy monopolist? That is the direction this warlike attitude is taking us.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 15:32 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] Hi again, as I've mentioned, I would not "preach to this person" about not using nVidia drivers. Only pointing out that it's probably illegal as being done by Freespire.
I fully agree that it would be better for such a person to use Linux and these drivers than 'Doze, but getting them illegally can't be a good thing. The not perfect but temporary "sort of legal" solution is to have the user install the drivers separately from the OS.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 17:02 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] When he uses ms windoze, he feels like a parent crammed into one of those tiny kindergarten desks at open house, and finds it awkward and uncomfortable.But why does he feel like that? Because of the lack of freedom. If he wants his freedom he can't tie himself up in proprietary drivers; if he doesn't want his freedom, then he's happy using Windows. Using proprietary drivers is like sitting on a tiger - in the short term it's warm, fuzzy and comfortable. Later, it's going to bite you in the arse.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 17:12 UTC (Wed) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] First: I said nothing about *you* at all. The GPL does NOT "criminalize" you or even apply to you for anything you choose to do on your own system. The GPL is about distribution, not use. Second: Nvidia could do less work by simply open sourcing the drivers and letting others maintain them. Giving them credit for working hard to do the wrong thing doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't vilify them; I just ignore them, except to avoid their chipsets. Third: Why would I recommend that such a person use Windows? (Well, I ouldn't: I'd recommend OSX.) Because if all they are interested in is using proprietary software, and they don't care about freedom, what benefit comes with Linux? Linux isn't inherently more powerful than Windows or OSX, and if you don't care about its advantages (all of which stem from it being free software), why would you put up with its disadvantages (no screaming fast 3D graphics, crappy/unreliable power management)? But if you're willing to compromise on 3D drivers, and then wireless networking, and then ..., how is Linux any different? I'm just stuck with a different proprietary monopolist, any one of which could suddenly decide not to support my particular system components any more. (FWIW, I, in fact, use Linux for all kinds of "cool, fun, and interesting" tasks. I don't think that 3D games are the be-all, end-all of computing.)
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 12:37 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] There is something to be said for standing one's ground too. If someone installs Linux and only wants the benefits without the costs, then I have very little sympathy for them. Freedom has costs. Distributors that seek to make money from free software while ignoring, obscuring and/or betraying the principles held by those that have written the software richly deserve all the bad press they get, and probably deserve a lot more.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 13:39 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] I agree it sucks. I would like to see Freespire succeed in making a great distribution that anyone can use with any hardware.
I'm just pointing out that it's probably illegal. No, I'm not planning to sue them, but someone might, and then where will we be?
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 14:07 UTC (Wed) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] All these "non-gpl" vendors have to do is tell us how to use their products. I don't think that's so much to ask.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 18:12 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >IMHO linux needs to learn better how to play well with others.
I think "sharing" and "cooperating" are an integral part of "playing well with others". That's how the whole thing started, by a proprietary vendor refusing to play well and share something as trivial as a printer driver.
>Sure, in a perfect world, all devices would have open source drivers for linux, but there is something to be said for picking your battles.
Yes, and since not caving to the argument that a refusal to be anti-social would alienate hardware developers has brought many open sourced drivers to the linux kernel it would be foolish to do so just now because someone somewhere worships his framerate above the freedom of his peers.
>It would be well if the linux developer community could be more gracious about cooperating with non-gpl vendors.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 20:30 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] I respect your position, assuming that you are really fighting the good fight, and suffering because of your principles. OTOH, if you simply don't care that much about linux video performance, because your only interface to linux is a putty session from a windoze peecee, then I can't respect that sort of hypocrisy.
I suspect that there are some from each camp represented in this forum. Those who use ms windoze for all their desktop needs can afford to be "hard core" about the purity of linux, because they dont have to live with the resulting limitations. Those who actually run linux for everything, including all their desktop activities, will quite often have have a more moderate perspective, one tempered with real world observations.
I don't think anybody is going to necesarily change anybody's mind on the nvidia question here, but on a brighter note, the Intel graphics scene is certainly looking up. I for one am very eager to see the fruits of intels latest video hardware designs and the release of the accompanying specs for the driver writers.
I'd love to have a credible, open source alternative to nvidia for a serious linux desktop box, because it sure isn't ATI yet - although that might be changing soon as well...
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 22:02 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >I respect your position, assuming that you are really fighting the good fight, and suffering because of your principles.
Personal positions mean little on larger ethical questions. It's an active striving towards sofware freedom, as much as is feasible for any individual ,that defines ethical behaviour.
A person can be using ms-windows as long as he does not deny to himself that he is partaking in the building of walls to divide users. He may unfortunately simply feel he is not yet up to using a full blown GNU/Linux environment.
The first user is supporting software freedom. The second work is actively working against software freedom.
>OTOH, if you simply don't care that much about linux video performance, because your only interface to linux is a putty session from a windoze peecee, then I can't respect that sort of hypocrisy.
As I said before to a similar post of yours, "Nasty things, suspicions". Or, to put it more bluntly "Those who actually run linux for everything, including all their desktop activities, will quite often have have a more moderate perspective, one tempered with real world observations." is just plain assertion which sounds like a personal excuse to justify a "moderate perspective".
>I don't think anybody is going to necesarily change anybody's mind on the nvidia question here,
No, but it's important that users that use binary modules realize they are putting their own convenience over the software freedoms of others.
<snip>
>I'd love to have a credible, open source alternative to nvidia for a serious linux desktop box, because it sure isn't ATI yet - although that might be changing soon as well...
Well, I don't think we're going to get it by promoting the glory and perceived convenience of binary drivers.
As an assertion on my part, I don't think two of the largest Enterprise distributions would have opposed the practice if no negative signal would have reached them from the developer community.
Insisting on software freedom is an investment that will yield its profit in real practicality later on to the detriment of noone.
GPL? Posted Aug 10, 2006 12:41 UTC (Thu) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] >> I'd love to have a credible, open source alternative to nvidia for a serious linux desktop box, because it sure isn't ATI yet - although that might be changing soon as well...
> Well, I don't think we're going to get it by promoting the glory and perceived convenience of binary drivers.
It's not about promoting the glory, it's about calling a spade a spade. At the moment, good video performance on linux means nvidia. end. of. story.
I will be overjoyed if intel provides a fully unencumbered alternative.
GPL? Posted Aug 10, 2006 7:02 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] But the "others" you insist Linux must "learn better how to play well with" insist that they're the only ones in the playground and refuse to share any of their toys. Aren't you just asking Linux to keep quiet and take it whilst it has its lunch money stolen?
GPL? Posted Aug 10, 2006 12:38 UTC (Thu) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > Aren't you just asking Linux to keep quiet and take it whilst it has its lunch money stolen?
What an odd statement - in a world where people really are being oppressed, you see nvidia's optional, and freely available drivers for linux as bullying and theft.
GPL? Posted Aug 10, 2006 13:43 UTC (Thu) by chromatic (subscriber, #26207) [Link] "Theft" is likely an inaccurate term, but NVidia's copyright infringement is hardly generous behavior. Should the copyright holders of the Linux kernel stand idly by and say "That's okay, ignore our license if it gets your users a higher frame rate"?
GPL? Posted Aug 17, 2006 6:29 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Wow. Taking someone's extension of your analogy as a literal statement, that's really the way to build a constructive argument.
Since you appear to need this spelled out, it was a metaphor for submissiveness to inequitable behaviour - which I submit is what you were asking.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 12:05 UTC (Wed) by EmbeddedLinuxGuy (guest, #35019) [Link] With Kororaa, there was no user choice. It *only* worked with proprietary modules.This is not really true; it also worked with the open-source Intel 3D drivers. I wrote a letter to the developer asking him to distribute an Intel-only version of the XGL CD, but I guess this didn't sound interesting to him. Anyway the issue of "choice" is sort of irrelevant here, since the closed-source "choice" is basically illegal.
GPL? Posted Aug 9, 2006 21:24 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > Please note Freespire's emphasis on user choice.
They chose the name "Freespire", which has strong connotations of "free software" in the GNU/Linux user base. It's right to call them to task for naming the software deceptively.
> The GPL restrictions only come into play when software is *distributed*.
Indeed. Redistributing GPL software as a combined work with non-free software is not permitted by the GPL, and is a copyright violation. The only thing that can be open to debate is whether that's what is being done in this instance.
They do not seem to be completely ignorant of the issue: "Also available is the Freespire 1.0 OSS Edition, a special version of Freespire that does not include any proprietary software."
Freespire 1.0 released, with Haskell! Posted Aug 12, 2006 23:16 UTC (Sat) by shapr (subscriber, #9077) [Link] Also, Haskell is being used for much of the system infrastructure. Ever wanted to typecheck your shellscripts?
|
|||||||||||