Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft dealNovell's IRC session on the Microsoft dealPosted Nov 28, 2006 2:33 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal by drag Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
If Ubuntu starts shipping... What are you talking about ? Ubuntu does it already... Yes, Ubuntu is clearly violating GPL - but somehow noone makes it "a big deal"... May be because Ubuntu make all the right noises about "Ubuntu Philosophy" while Novell does not... P.S. Right now Ubuntu ships only wireless binary drivers, not the ATI and nVidia drivers - but I fail to see the difference: GPL violation is GPL violation. The people who watch this kind of things are too busy on embedded front, that's all...
(Log in to post comments)
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 3:20 UTC (Tue) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link] It's not a GPL violation. Ubuntu ships the binary blobs separate from the linking kernel code, and only joins the two at boot time (in tmpfs). Granted, this pisses all over the *spirit* of the thing...
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 3:36 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't think that is even valid way to work around the kernel licensing.
Sure it's ok to ship a 'compilation' of software that contains both GPL and non-GPL code, but (depending on driver) those binaries are being shipped that are clearly kernel-derived and no source code is aviable. So there is a violation.
Remember Koraraa?
Well it now refuses to ship non-GPL drivers.
"""I guess in the end, the message from the Linux developers and the GPL license is this: "If you don't like it, don't use Linux. Simple. And if you do use Linux, then you should play by the rules." which I think is fair enough. I would like to emphasize that this is not a weakness of Linux, but a strength. The "grey area" of "derived works" in copyright law is just far too grey and we could argue both sides forever. But in the end if we just ask ourselves "why would we want to use closed source products anyway?" maybe we already knew the answer, we just weren't (and many aren't) prepared to accept it."""
In my opinion that is pretty kick-ass attitude. There is no way that people will ever get open source support from many hardware manufacturers unless Linux users and Linux developers present a unified front that propriatory drivers are not acceptable.
It doesn't matter if it's a license violation or not. Screw the legal BS. Binary-only drivers are unacceptable and we should demand better or give our money to other manufacturers.
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:16 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] That's utterly irrelevant. Kernel modules are clearly derived works of the kernel and therefore must, legally, be under a GPL compatible license. It doesn't matter when or how you link them.
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 7:59 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Kernel modules are in gray area. If they are not distributed with the kernel! If you distribute anything with the kernel - you better use GPLed source or you can use "mere aggregation" clause from the GPL ("mere 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"). There are no other choice. Kernel authors unambiguously said: "user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls" are not affected. But kernel modules (and even programs like udev which use more intimate access to kernel then "normal system calls") - they are affected. Yes, there are small possibility that you can twist the GPL (given pretty damn good lawyer) enough to make the Ubuntu somehow look non-infringing. But if Novell is getting such a severe beating for it's use of GPL loophole then why Ubuntu (who also uses loophole - even if different one) must be accepted ? It's hypocrisy...
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 9:53 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] What `more intimate access' does udev use? netlink sockets use the socket API: normal system calls. inotify is a normal system call. Digging through /sys uses open()/read()/close(), normal system calls.
Sorry, I don't think that merely *reading /sys* binds you by the requirements of the GPL (if it does, then reading /proc does too, and I can think of a good few proprietary apps that do that, and nobody complains.)
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 11:47 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Sorry, I don't think that merely *reading /sys* binds you by the requirements of the GPL (if it does, then reading /proc does too, and I can think of a good few proprietary apps that do that, and nobody complains.) /proc and /sys are quite different: /proc is decoupled from kernel internals, /sys is 1-to-1 mapping for kernel structures. Yuo can as well claim that your program is not bound by GPL if it uses just /dev/kmem to change the kernel and install 10Mb of code there: you are just using open()/read()/close(), right ?
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 23:58 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] This is where the law leaves me behind, I'm afraid. If using syscallsalone is considered not to impose tight enough coupling to contaminate with the GPL, I can't see how using syscalls alone to read a particular filesystem can be considered tight enough either.
(But then this is all completely academic for me anyway as everything I've
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 11:29 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link] It's not that grey an area. If you don't infringe the license yourself, but basically set it up so that the end user running the software infringes it, you're still liable - it's contributory infringment.
For something to be CI, you generally have to prove 1) knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) that a material contribution was made [i.e., assistance].
Canonical must be aware that shipping the drivers built in is infringing, otherwise they would do it that way. They've also set it up so that users machine's automatically combine the material in an infringing way. Those two facts satisfy 1. and 2. above, to my mind.
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 11:50 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Running the software can not infringe: GPL explicitly states that you can run anything you want as long as you are not distributing "the program"...
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 28, 2006 11:58 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link] You're missing the point; I'm not talking about the end-user infringing, therefore their running the software is irrelevant.
Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal Posted Nov 29, 2006 2:49 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] But they are distributed with the kernel. And being derivative works, they clearly don't fall into the 'mere aggregation' category.
|
|||||||||||