Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
Posted Nov 28, 2006 3:36 UTC (Tue) by drag
In reply to: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
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.
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.
to post comments)