Posted on 12/14/2006 3:44:20 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagged modules.
I think I'd favour that. It would aid those people who are trying to obtain device specs, and who are persuading organisations to GPL their drivers.
(Excerpt) Read more at thread.gmane.org ...
And Linus has responded. Some of it is unclear, but one thing stands out loud and clear.
########If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say that its authors have to conform to our worldview.
We should make decisions on TECHNICAL MERIT. And this one is clearly being pushed on anything but.############
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475654/focus=475824
Andrew Morton had agreed, resulting in the "I think I'd favor that" quote opening this posting. Andrew is number two in the Linux world these days, managing the largest of the merge trees that feeds to Linus.
Then Linus Torvalds came out strongly against the patch, as noted in the second post above. Linus is still top dog in the Linux world, integrating the main feeder trees from Greg, Andrew and others into the main Linux tree, which is then used as the basis for many distributions such as Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, Ubuntu, and a cast of hundreds. Linus announced that he would refuse to accept this patch unless it was -first- accepted into these major distributions (a reversal of the usual order of patch traversal.)
Others chimed in, several agreeing with Linus.
Greg KH was persuaded that his patch was wrong, though his frustrations with companies abusing the Linux GPL license remain. He pulled his patch from his driver tree, resulting in Post 4, above.
This patch is clearly dead.
Nvidia currently keeps the bulk of its kernel driver code for Nvidia video cards closed source and proprietary. It loads a driver stub into the kernel that is open source but not GPL. You can get the source for this stub, but it is not GPL licensed. That stub is small, and has no particular knowledge of Nvidia video hardware. That stub loads as a driver into the kernel, and interfaces with a closed source proprietary module that has Nvidia secrets and knows how to driver their video hardware.
ATI (now owned by AMD) and Intel (who actually produce the largest quantity of video graphics chips) do similar things to keep their video hardware secret.
It is not clear how these many hardware vendors, working with closed source drivers and trade secrets critical to their competitive success, would have responded to the GPL-only driver patch, had it been taken into the main kernel tree and major distributions. Perhaps much of the most interesting video, networking and storage hardware would have become unavailable to the Linux market, which would have been a big problem for those of us working in or depending on that market.
main Linux tree, which is then used as the basis for many distributionsshould have been:
main Linux tree, which is then used as the basis for the kernel in many distributionsCertainly the bulk of any major distribution is not the kernel, but rather the many other pieces of software such as the windowing (X11, KDE, Gnome, ...), desktop, application, build (compiler, make, ...) and many other packages.
To me, this freaking rocks, as we, the end users, end up with the best of both worlds. You can follow a fork and use it if you want, or you can use the main supported kernel if you feel more comfortable with it. No one tells you that you must do things their way. Well, they can tell you all they want, but you don't have to listen :-)
I thought the whole concept of Linux was to give users MORE choices and MORE control over their computing experience. This has to be the stupidest idea ever. "Our system is open, unless we don't like you."
Gotta love Linus. He blows GE's worldview that GPL advocates are all about politicizing software and pushing a philosophical agenda.
Linus won't ban binary kernel modules
12/15/2006 8:46:12 AM, by Ryan Paul
The Linux kernel mailing list (LKML) has returned to the oft-discussed topic of binary kernel modules. Considered by some to be a violation of the open source license used by the Linux kernel, binary modules are proprietary software components (usually hardware drivers) that interface with the Linux kernel and provide additional functionality. Kernel contributors have called for the inclusion of a patch that would technologically prevent the use of proprietary kernel modules at the close of a 12-month grace period.
The General Public License (GPL), the open-source software license used by the Linux kernel and many other open-source projects, facilitates redistribution of program source code but stipulates that derivative works must be distributed under the same license. Some kernel contributors contend that proprietary kernel modules distributed without source code are derivative works and subsequently constitute copyright infringement. Despite the technical difficulties associated with maintaining compatibility with the kernel, some hardware vendors (like Nvidia, for instance) continue to release proprietary kernel drivers.
Kernel contributor Andrew Morton suggested that the kernel developers "give people 12-months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, talk with the legal dept, etc.) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagged modules," in order to "aid those people who are trying to obtain device specs, and who are persuading organisations to GPL their drivers." Kernel contributor Greg Kroah-Hartman promptly created a patch that would make the kernel emit a warning when a proprietary module is loaded, stating that the module would no longer function after January 1, 2008.
Characterizing the entire idea as "shortsighted" and "stupid," Linus Torvalds responded with relatively well-reasoned (and characteristically acerbic) criticisms, pointing out that an outright ban on binary drivers would simply compel companies to move their binary driver code into userspace where it isn't subject to the limitation. Torvalds also compares a binary driver ban to DRM, arguing that it would constitute an unreasonable limitation on what people can do with the Linux kernel. "I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn well please. Fair use, man," wrote Torvalds. "But it should go the other way too: we should not try to assert our copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't derived from ours, or assert our technical measures that keep people from combining things their way."
Although Torvalds refused to be the one to merge the code into the kernel, he suggests that the developers "use somebody else ... to push [their] political agendas," and has indicated that he will not prevent the binary module ban if the other kernel developers can build a consensus on the issue amongst major Linux distributors. If that condition has to be met, it means that the ban probably won't be imposed any time in the near future. It is highly unlikely that all the major Linux distributors are going to be willing to agree to an outright ban on binary modules in light of Ubuntu's recent decision to include proprietary drivers in the default Ubuntu installation. The Ubuntu developers behind the controversial decision are quick to point out that users overwhelmingly support the inclusion and availability of binary drivers. If instated, a ban on proprietary drivers would massively stifle adoption of the operating system and lead some users to switch to a different platform.
Ubuntu already caved? I bet Debian's pissed.
I agree wholly with you. That's why I'm glad Linus is the one heading up the Kernel.
He's clearly not interested in Stallman's religion.
You're wasting your time. You aren't going to change GE's mind.
No matter how many facts can be presented to counter it, we will continue to hear how all GPLers are software communists and stallmanists.
Maybe one day we'll be effective in slipping "torvaldist" into GE's posts, but I doubt it'll be addressed.
See my above post. I was short and to the point, and I know I'm right.
Linus is the man. That's it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.