| |||||||||||||
I got confused too initiallyI got confused too initiallyPosted Apr 29, 2004 2:34 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727)In reply to: Thank you for correction! by proski Parent article: Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE When I first heard about the LinuxAnt fuss, I also wrongly assumed that it was both DriverLoader and the Conexant modem stuff (having taken care to ensure that there are free drivers for all hardware in this machine). I still agree with rjamestaylor; LinuxAnt should be penalised by people who care about freedom of software for trying to bypass the usual rules, whether or not their intent was honourable. I know this isn't Slashdot, and thus I'm probably preaching to the choir, but I don't feel that anything that helps Linux adoption is always beneficial. Part of the point of Linux for me is that it's free software in RMS's sense, and as such, people who for whatever reason do not wish to keep to the freedom side of things deserve penalising. The rules exist that allow you to co-exist adequately with those of us who don't buy devices that require binary-only drivers, and if you start bypassing them, I'm going to be unhappy. My personal setup includes machines of 4 different processor architectures; I have both 64 and 32 bit systems, with both little and big endian byte orders. If I install free software on one, I know that it'll work on the others, provided I'm prepared to debug it. I like to have it made clear to me when I'm installing non-free software, so that I know that it may not work on any other machine I posess. LinuxAnt's trick has potential to confuse me if I'm not careful and rely on kernel tainting to spot non-free drivers, and for that reason I feel they are morally in the wrong.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||