OSNews

Who is stifiling creativity now?

Who is stifiling creativity now?

Noone is stifling creativity if noone is sending cease and desists, and noone is bothered by lone rangers sending emails that otherwise stop distributions dead in their tracks.

If Kororaa ignores the email, noone will be bothered.

Whether or not he is right or not people will listen to him. Especially when it comes to the grey erea's his word could turn a judge or jury in favor of one or the other.

"Whether or not he is right or not people will listen to him. Especially when it comes to the grey erea's his word could turn a judge or jury in favor of one or the other."

True enough. My point is that it really only matters if the FSF has sent the cease and desist or not for the distribution in question. If they had sent it, then he would have to take the FSF to court to try the GPL in order for Linus to even be heard in that respect.

My point is that it really only matters if the FSF has sent the cease and desist or not for the distribution in question

As stated in my previous post, the FSF has no case and is not involved in this in any way. They have no copyright on any of the code.

"As stated in my previous post, the FSF has no case and is not involved in this in any way. They have no copyright on any of the code."

I know that. This is not about the code...this is about the GPL, unless I am sadly mistaken, which is a possibility. The question is whether the GPL applies in this instance. The code is known to not be a derivative work. That is why I mentioned the FSF. It could be I misunderstood the whole thing, but my impression was that Kororaa (sp?) had recieved a cease and desisit letter from distributing the binary only pre-compiled modules with his distribution. There is a reason why no other distribution distributes those as well, hence the whole grey area. If the modules were not precompiled to the kernel there would not be a problem.

"Well, Linus just uses the GPL, he does not write it or control it. The email is not stated who it is from. If it is from the FSF, then of course it would have to be accommodated as they are the enforcers of the GPL, and have the lawyers to work on it. Not from the FSF though, it may just be someone trying to stop them from distributing it. Who knows."

The FSF provided a license template that projects could apply to their works. It has no control over if/how the license is enforced. Linux Corp. does. If Linux specifically and publicly defines those binaries as "derivatives" then it's time to shut down. But as of yet it seems that, at least with nVidia, they feel otherwise.

I think the guy who put this distro together just got spooked too easily. No need for all the hubbub. An email is definitely not something to be concerned about whether or not it is from a kernel maintainer. Get worried when and only when you see a cease and desist.

I agree! Bring back Dead Like Me!

Oh and more on topic, I'm pretty sure Big Linux also includes the nvidia drivers for their LiveCD, though I could be wrong, it's been a while since I played around with it, and they haven't made a release in a long time, but it had Metisse built into it (3D effects kind of like XGL) It was also only in Portugese.

Whether Nvidia's driver code is OS independent, or whether God scripted it on stone is totally irrelevant to this case; the fact is that the Linux kernel *itself* is GPL, so only GPL code may be added in, which is just what the programers agreed on when they developed the kernel.

Yes, life would be more comfortable if we blindly allowed binary drivers into the system, but only briefly, I believe, as outdated, unmaintained and incompatible drivers would pile up and throw Linux unto total disarray, with no means to fix it in that world where hardware specs would have no need to be but secret.

Is it static linking, dynamic linking or both that can't be done between GPL code and code under an incompatible license?

edit:
Static linking would be obvious that it's not allowed. Or so I think at least.
Dynamic linking. If that is not allowed, there's a shitload of violations out there. Where some of these violations originate with GPL code and not the other way around.

Edited 2006-05-16 13:16

Linking is allowed. Linking of GPL+Proprietary is legal, it is the redistribution of the linked binaries that isn't.

Of course the drivers themselves are aren't derived works. If I take the latest Tom Clancy novel and write my own ending, my writing won't be a derived work of the Clancy novel (unless I actually reuse stuff from him). Obviously, it might be a bit non sequitur if I don't include any of his characters or finish the plot, but still...

However, if I start selling copies of Tom Clancy's novel with my ending, *that* is a derived work. It is derived from two independent works -- his and mine. The fact that my ending was created independently means that I can do whatever I want with it, but Clancy's work is still his, and if I want to distribute it, I need his permission.

So, the question is, do the Kororaa developers have permission from the Linux developers to distribute Linux bundled with non-GPL drivers?

So, the question is, do the Kororaa developers have permission from the Linux developers to distribute Linux bundled with non-GPL drivers?

No: the question is actually whether or not the result is a derived work. Indeed it's not as simple as grandparent states, but n'either is the issue so clear as you present it. Welcome to the grey area .

'bundled' is an unfortunate word to use here by the way, it is often used to describe the situation that 2 pieces are distributed together, but sufficiently seperated not to constitute a 'derived work'.

If the result is indeed a derived work, Kororaa is f--ked: they'd need the permission of almost all kernel developers, which is practically impossible to get.

If there would be no GPL or GNU, there would be no linux distribution as you know it today.

Nonsense. If the FSF didn't write a compiler, someone else would've. Saying that Linux thanks its existance to the FSF or the GPL is rather shortsighted-- Linus would've just chosen another license. I don't think Linus thought: "Hey, there's a GPL, let's write a kernel for it.". It was the other way around. "I have written a kernel, maybe the GPL is a suitable license."

There were compilers before the FSF was there. There was also UNIX. It's not like "if guy xy wouldn't have invented the wheel, someone else would have".

Why should anyone write a decent C compiler and distribute it completely freely, if not for idealistic reasons?

What would Linus have done with his kernel without GNU? Would others have joined Linus' development if it was another license? Do you really think the kernel is the biggest part of an operating system?


Who's talking nonsense, you just can't know what would've been. Who would've written a gcc equivalent? You?

It could be that we would have the same we have now without the FSF. But I don't think that's realistic for today.


cu
Ford Prefect


p.s.: Someone modded my comment done, but what was the reason so it got accomplished? I can only think of "Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion". Surely an option only available for OSNews editors who can call other's comments as "nonsense" I guess. Sadly enough I can't mod down your *private opinion*.

BSD existed before the GNU. A whole operating system, given away freely and all you have to do is acknowledge UC Berkeley's work. Linux could have done it without the FSF. They just made it easier.

"BSD existed before the GNU."

Yes.

The only problem is that your delusionnal and think that BSD or any BSD's can be the same as GNU. The most advanced BSD are ? Microsoft and Apple , they are both Not Free ( as in freedom ) and they are both closed source and are both traitor license ( They took Open Source code switch the license to something not Open Source controlled by only them )

"A whole operating system, given away freely and all you have to do is acknowledge UC Berkeley's work."

Thats why it fails , in order to be a real Open Source and real Free software , not just gratis ( the freely term you used is wrong ) , it as to be mandatory that it stay at all time Open Source and that it dont take rights that are what make it free. Otherwise you get BSD , and BSD dont work in reality.

"They just made it easier."

No they made it a working reality in human society. Any theory is good on paper , but very few are realistic and workable in the human society.

The sad reality is that BSD is based on noble principle exept that because its a protection clause and that its irrealistic , it get taken over by the one who have the most power and money. Thats why its a failure.

The GPL is one license , that get updated over time to face the new legal reality of our world , the BSD'S are all protection clauses that are trying to be Free license ( as in freedom )like the GPL , but they dont care about freedom , just that you use the code.

http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp

Only FreeBSD.

https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=...

No BSD driver.

BTW before you start foaming at the mouth and making lies and insult about me you have to look at the license of Xfree and X.org , they are Open Source and similar to BSD's , thats why the Graphic driver are lacking we believed and listened to the false and empty promise made by the Open Source advocate and hardware maker to deliver the driver that everyone can use , as always , it dont exist , if we ( GNU/Linux IMF ) can stop following , listening and responding to the FUD and bulshit and jealousy that BSD and the rest of the OS who are lesser and of no consequence to us we can then start making the GNU/Linux GPL graphic driver.

Responding to every bozo who as a false opinion about the GPL and the state of the graphic driver according to what there clueless friend told them , is not going to fix the problem that we need GPL graphic driver that dont exist as direct replacement yet.

WE NEED TO FIX THE PROBLEM , not discuss it.

WE NEED GNU/LINUX GPL GRAPHIC DRIVER

"Would others have joined Linus' development if it was another license?"

No , the Linux kernel was first under another license and nobody used it , then LT switched it to the GPL and the GNU developper and user started contributing to it and building company to support it.

Thats one of the reason why the OS is called GNU/Linux.

Nonsense. If the FSF didn't write a compiler, someone else would've.

Nonsense. It takes more than one person to write a compiler of that quality and breadth. Besides that, you seem to be missing a lot of important evidence to support your case -- their are plenty of licenses to choose from yet GPL'd products are prevalant in FOSS. I posit that the reason so many people contribute to GPL projects is just because they know that their work will be equally shared by all as per the GPL agreement. No one is FORCED to use GPL products but the law insists that we obey copyrights. For example, I don't use MS products because I don't care for their licensing which prohibits things I might want to do, such as using parts of their code base to form a new product of my own. Yet I respect Microsoft's right to choose how to license their product. It would be very nice (and not at all asking too much) if people choosing to use GPL'd products would obey copyright and adhere to the licenses that the products are provided with.

Nonsense. If the FSF didn't write a compiler, Linux today would be no more.

The BSDs systems would have take his place.

And Yes, Linux thanks its existance to the FSF. A Linux kernel without GNU tools is useless.

Thom acts as if this is the only "grey area" in law. Ever hear of the USL v. UCB lawsuit, Thom? Or the Apple Corps vs Apple Computer case?

Are either of those relevant to the issue as mentioned in the article? Of course there are more grey areas in the law than this; does that make it okay? Shouldn't you strive for as much clarity as possible, esp. in a license?

Leave sorting out the law to lawyers.

What use is a license when adoptees do not know what to expect from said license?

Are either of those relevant to the issue as mentioned in the article?

Yes, when the point is an anti-GPL statement. Since the obtuseness of the GPL is a "feature" of just about any license, it's at best an anti-license statement.

Actually, I find the GPL one of the easiest to understand software licenses. IANAL.

Of course there are more grey areas in the law than this; does that make it okay?

No, of course not.

Shouldn't you strive for as much clarity as possible, esp. in a license?

Yes, of course.

What use is a license when adoptees do not know what to expect from said license?

Do any end users really know what to expect from any licence? Is it common knowledge, for example, that the Windows EULA limits your guarantee of suitability just as much as the GPL (which states its position on the subject clearly) does?

My point is that it's impossible to legislate or license for every eventuality, and conflicts over the interpretation of the law are what we have lawyers and courts for.

He's talking about grey areas pertaining to the GPL and no GPLed code, he's not talking about anything else, so bringing up anything else would be off topic

It looks like it.

This is why you get flamed - not because you highlight a grey area in a license, but because you use this grey area to stage an attack on said license (and, by extension, the Linux kernel, since at this stage it cannot be relicensed).

So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL? That's what you are saying. I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the license, but according to you, I should not do that because I'm an editor? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic.

What constitutes "derived work" may not be clear cut, but that doesn't mean that the license is useless.

Where did I say the license is useless? Don't go making stuff up now.

There are grey areas in lots of laws, contracts and licenses. I'm sure there are grey areas in other open-source licenses, and EULAs are basically nothing but grey areas. That doesn't mean that they have no value.

Just because there are more grey areas in the world of computing (ones that are unrelated to the topic at hand), I should not be allowed to point out the ones in the GPL?

I'm sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it's not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.

You didn't even highlight a flaw in a license, you highlighted the fact that "derived work" in the context of copyright law requires a lawyer to understand. That's independant of license, it's how copyright law works.

You didn't even highlight a flaw in a license, you highlighted the fact that "derived work" in the context of copyright law requires a lawyer to understand. That's independant of license, it's how copyright law works.

Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL-- the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer's.

Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL-- the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer's.

Congratulations on continuing to not understand. The GPL doesn't define what a "derived work" is. Thus, the fact that "derived work" is convoluted cannot be a problem of the GPL. Why is "derived work" not defined in the GPL? Because "derived work" is defined by copyright law and common law. Different districts have different tests to decide if something is a "derived work" or not. So, the only way to know whether or not your software (or anything else for that matter) is a "derived work" or not is to hire a lawyer who is an expert in that field (though, the only way to be 100% sure is to have the issue litigated and exhaust all the appeal options, but that's a bit more expensive then just consulting a lawyer).

So no, "derived work" being unclear has absolutely nothing to do with the author of a license.

And finally, who did you think wrote the GPL and all the other licenses you use? That's right, lawyers did. So lawyers are, in fact, the ones responsible for the unclear content in the GPL and every other license out there.

So it looks like no matter how you slice or dice your comments, you're wrong.

As a closing comment, anyone who relies on a post on this or any other internet forum for legal advice is an idiot and deserves all the trouble they get into because of it. If you want to know whether or not your code is a derivative of someone else's consult a lawyer.

Edited 2006-05-16 07:31

"Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL-- the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer's."

Thom, really, this is silly.
The GPL is absolutely clear: Derived works also have to be released under the GPL if they are distributed.

What isn't clear is the legal definition of a derived work. However, this is clearly beyond the scope of the GPL to define, but a matter for those who write the laws and a matter of case law.


P.S.: As to why you get flamed.
It's not that you try to point out problems, it's that you frequently misquote what other people say, as is the case in the above example and don't present your criticism in a sane way but instead are on a crusade against what you perceive to be zealots, fanatics, etc.

So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL? That's what you are saying. I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the license, but according to you, I should not do that because I'm an editor? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic.

Of course you're not allowed to criticise the holy cow of the OSS world. Doing that is like depicting Muhammad...

So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL?

Of course you are. However, as an editor, you have a responsibility to remain "above the fray" and not give the impression of partiality. If you become partial, then you shouldn't complain if people argue with you.

It seems to me you would like us to take whatever you say for the truth and refrain from criticising you when we feel you're wrong...

Where did I say the license is useless? Don't go making stuff up now.

I'm sorry, but you basically said that the license is unsuited for the kernel or programs of that complexity. That's another way of saying it's useless for that purpose, or for any similarly complex program. These are your words, not mine:

"If one of the most important terms in the GPL is not clearly definable, doesn't that mean the license is simply not suited for something as complex as an operating system kernel? Or, that the license itself is too complex and unclear?"

Just because there are more grey areas in the world of computing (ones that are unrelated to the topic at hand), I should not be allowed to point out the ones in the GPL?

Sure you're allowed, however when you present it in a way that implies that the GPL should not be used because of these grey areas, then you are in fact taking position against use of the GPL. As such, you should expect a fair amount of criticism from those who have benefited from the GPL or have used it for their own projects.

I'm sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it's not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.

To claim that they are weaknesses you'd have to give us a compelte legal framework. You're not a lawyer, Thom, and such criticism would be better done by someone who understands the license better.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, though. Are you claiming that all licenses are stupid? And what is that quote about the Bible? Do you hold the Bible as a legally sound document?

The GPL is a fine license, despite the grey area that you pointed out. This is corroborated by the fact that no one has challenged it and won in a court of law. Is it perfect? No, however nothing is, and therefore that fact alone is not sufficient to single it out in condemning it.

Now, you may not like the GPL on philosophical grounds, and that's quite acceptable, but on legal grounds the GPL is quite strong (as far as licenses go).

>This is why you get flamed - not because you
>highlight a grey area in a license, but because you
>use this grey area to stage an attack on said
>license (and, by extension, the Linux kernel, since
>at this stage it cannot be relicensed).

Huh? Is the GPL so holy that criticism of it is not to be tolerated? And why, if I criticise GPL, does that suggest that I criticise Linux by implication? And if I criticise Linux, is that wrong and I should be flamed?

Good grief.

I suspect that you're right, but perhaps people who flame for those reasons should have a good look in the mirror and ask themselves what they see.

Huh? Is the GPL so holy that criticism of it is not to be tolerated? And why, if I criticise GPL, does that suggest that I criticise Linux by implication? And if I criticise Linux, is that wrong and I should be flamed?

Of course you can criticise the GPL and Linux. However, if you do so in an aggressive manner, then you should expect those who use the GPL and/or Linux, who have used the former and/or have contributed to the latter, to respond aggressively as well. I'm not saying it's the correct response, mind you - I agree with you that flaming is not an appropriate form of debate. I'm just saying that one should expect it.

Isn't it in fact legal to link LGPL code to both GPL and Proprietary/Closed stuff?

As far as I know, that was the intent - and many KDE libs are licensed as LGPL.

Wouldn't it be logical, therefore, for the ATI/NVIDIA binaries to use an LGPL wrapper of some sort for communication with the kernel?

A workaround yes, but legal?

My knowledge of kernels/programming is rather limited, but I'm trying

No, wouldn't work that way. LGPL is more or less intended for standalone libraries that are being used by other applications without forcing the linking code to be GPL. LGPL originally stood for Library GPL for that reason.

LGPL'd code linked to GPL code would still require a linking application to respect the GPL. In the particular case of KDE, the libraries are LGPL'd in order to allow developers to link closed source if they're using the commercial Qt license the KDE libraries are linked to. If the devs choose to use Qt's GPL license, then they need to GPL the code they are linking to KDE, even though KDE is LGPL'd.

Conversely, because GTK is LGPL, and linked Gnome libraries are LGPL, then a GTK/Gnome application could be LGPL or GPL, as the developer chooses. If GTK was GPL (I need to tread carefully here to avoid starting a whole different debate...) then any application written for Gnome would have to be GPL in respect of the GTK license.

What nVidia does is use a GPL'd wrapper (shim) that links with the kernel but communicates with a proprietary binary module. The source code for this wrapper is included with the nvidia installer, which compiles the wrapper against the kernel. On the one hand, it could be argued in strict terms that the binary module should be required to respect the GPL since it is linked to the GPL kernel through a GPL wrapper. But the grey area Linus is pointing out is that nvidia's binary driver isn't specific to linux, it's based on the same code they use for BSD and Windows, so it's not necessarily a "derived" work of the kernel, which is where the GPL kicks in.

Hmmm, I don't know if I'm helping clear this up for you, or making matters worse...

Since when Linus is allowed to interpret the GPL ?
Only the FSF is able to say of the NVIDIA driver is a derived work or not, not Linus "himself"...

Linus is (with other people) the holder of the Linux copyright, not FSF. So it's his interpretation that matters, here.

"Linus is (with other people) the holder of the Linux copyright"

No ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

All Linus is is owner of his own code. Which allow him to relicense it under another license. Linus is also the trademark owner of Linux in some country ( it would be worldwide if Linus would have been legally savy and respectfull of the power of the law.

"So it's his interpretation that matters, here."

No , because GPL does not stand for Granted Property by Linus. Freedom of speech does not entail judicial power or property ownership either. No one is going to sue or waste time on making LT realise he is wrong ( I would but thats just because I am fed up with the bulshit of some that originate from LT opening is mouth and spouting what he think , not what is legally right or the reality and there FUD and remixed version from it ) , he use the GPL , contribute GPL code and he as not claimed or show he whant control over it , the prblem is not Linus or the Linux kernel or GNU/Linux or the GPL.

Its the lack of GNU/Linux GPL driver , after all this time we need to realise no one will make them or make something good as Open Source.

"All Linus is is owner of his own code."

Which makes him the copyright holder automatically. That he chose to release his work under a copyleft license (which is of course also a copyright license legally) does not change this basic fact.

"No , because GPL does not stand for Granted Property by Linus. Freedom of speech does not entail judicial power or property ownership either."

Blah, blah, blah.
Linus' take on this matters as he has a large part of the copyright of the code in the kernel. This would give him legal standing if he were to decide to challenge someone in court about GPL infringement if this concerns the kernel.
So his opinion is very relevant here.


Seriously, I can fully understand your enthusiasm for free software, however I'm also of the strong opinion that enthusiasm is only a very poor substitute for having a clue.

Not that I want to accuse you of anything, but I suspect I was someone like you who feels strongly about free software yet doesn't have the slightest clue about it who send the poor Kororaa devs this disgusting email.

"Which makes him the copyright holder automatically."

No , but you dont understand law and how copyright works , the GPL is Copyleft and is controlled by the FSF , if you whant normal copyright protection and control of the license dont use the GPL , because you whont like it at all.

"That he chose ... this basic fact."

In reality copyright are really not basic and you dont make facts. Facts are verifiable and based on truth.

"Blah, blah, blah."

Yes , I knew that this argument would come up eventually , but as you know very well , this argument dont hold much value or power at anything.

"Linus' take on this ... concerns the kernel. "

No , but its fun of you and Linus to think so ;-)

"So his opinion is very relevant here."

No , because the Kororaa people are not claiming ownership over the linux kernel code , they are "accused" of something relating to GPL infrigment.

Its a licensing issue , not a copyright one. If it is ever something real. I dont get the detail and the FSF as not commented on it that I know of.

"Seriously"

Your not serious ...

"I can fully understand your enthusiasm for free software"

No , but its likely that you think so , you seem to make up the world as you see fit , not as it actualy is.

"however I'm also of the strong opinion that enthusiasm is only a very poor substitute for having a clue. "

Luckily , for me , and I dare suggest everyone else , your opinion are just as powerless as you are worthless.

"Not that I want to accuse you of anything"

Yes , you whant to smire me , but then again your too coward to do it in court. If you whant to , have your lawyer contact me , my email is Moulinneuf@yahoo.com

"but I suspect ... this disgusting email."

Personnaly , what I think is disgusting is the lack of detail and the hordes of liar such as yourself who are jumping on this in order to bash the GPL , and the GNU/Linux developper and users.

What I really find funny is the Kororaa developper asking ATI and Nvidia about the GPL , and people claiming Linus as any say at all in it.

I will just wait this one out from the side from now on , because I really think its just blown out of proportion by those who hate the GPL. You know morons like you.