Submitted by Mark Shuttleworth is trying to entice OpenSUSE developers to join Ubuntu. “Novell’s decision to go to great lengths to circumvent the patent framework clearly articulated in the GPL has sent shockwaves through the community. If you are an OpenSUSE developer who is concerned about the long term consequences of this pact, you may be interested in some of the events happening next week as part of the Ubuntu Open Week.”
Thats very generous of Mark Shuttleworth to welcome soon-to-be-stranded openSUSE developers onto their populated Ubuntu island.
Power up the ferries everyone. 🙂
If you are an OpenSUSE developer who is concerned about the long term consequences of this pact your welcome to join with fedora team.
I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.
That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL. It seems Ubuntu developers are willing to upset the balance just for Beryl’s god damn wobbly windows and rotating cubes.
Fedora Core:
Mod += 5
I’m interested in how it exactly violates the GPL. I know you can’t include non-gpl code with GPL code, but I thought that if you include the packages separately with option to install them somewhere along the way that’s some kind of loophole?
Feel free to correct me, this is one part of the GPL that’s very cloudy and I would sincerely like to know where the line is drawn without diving into legalese
I think the loophole is that binary driver developers use a layer which is compatible with GPL but also allows linking to binary blobs. It’s a gray area but seems OK with most kernel developers.
Distros don’t ship binary drivers for two reasons:
-free software philosophy
-need for agreement with company that created the driver
I might be wrong too though
Thanks
..AND the fact that the Linux API may change at some point, making a binary driver unusable until the company cares to change it, compile it and distribute it again. Remember the infamous case of the SM56 Motorola softmodem, who got its own binary driver for exactly one kernel version, Mandrake something or other and then never again.
I might be wrong, but since the layer/wrapper between kernel and binary driver is open source it’s not like it will be this much of a problem. NVidia drivers installer can compile this layer against custom kernels (but has some precompiled ones for major distros/kernels too).
No, it’s a violation that only the user should decide to make. There is nothing cloudy about it. You cannot legally link GPL with non-GPL compatable code. This might have been different were the kernel licensed under LGPL, but the GPL specifically prohibits it.
There kernel developers seem more pragmatic about certain underlining issues, thus their decision to continue supporting the GPLv2. But the GPL clearly states its terms regarding library linking.
Edited 2006-11-25 00:21
What if the drivers are in the package listing, and they’re opt-in during the install? Who’s to say that isn’t what they might try to stay in terms?
That might be acceptable if that were the case. But its not just display drivers that are in question. Ubuntu includes WiFi and probably other closed, proprietary modules that link with kernel.
Anyway, Mark Shuttleworth said proprietary graphics drivers will be included and desktop effects will be enabled by default. He did say that he’ll encourage education on why closed drivers on Linux should be avoided.
Unfortuantly, attempting to be a good role model doesn’t pan out nicely when you contridict yourself in practice.
Edited 2006-11-25 00:44
Ubuntu already enables proprietary modules by default. For the next release, they’ll enable proprietary ATI and nVidia modules by default.
Think of it this way: Ubuntu is going to ship an improved version of Linux (the kernel). The Linux they’re shipping supports several hardware that the Linux from kernel.org doesn’t support.
The GPL allows Ubuntu to distribute a modified (an improved) Linux, so it’s great that they’re doing it. But the GPL requires you to make all your improvements available to everyone also under the GPL, and Ubuntu is not doing that; some of their improvements are not being shipped with the source code, which is a clear violation of the GPL.
I know people are going to say that it’s important to have hardware just work out of the box, and indeed it is. But respecting the license of the software made available to you is a lot more important than that. If Ubuntu is so concerned about having hardware working out of the box, it could fund projects like nouveau.
And by the way, Novell stopped shipping proprietary kernel modules (SUSE used to ship them) because they decided to respect the terms of the GPL was more important.
which is a clear violation of the GPL.
Then why don’t you sue Ubuntu?
/* The GPL allows Ubuntu to distribute a modified (an improved) Linux, so it’s great that they’re doing it. But the GPL requires you to make all your improvements available to everyone also under the GPL, and Ubuntu is not doing that; some of their improvements are not being shipped with the source code, which is a clear violation of the GPL.*/
If you are an ubuntu developer who is concerned about the long term consequences of this pact, you may be interested in Opensuse
Sorry but you are wrong, I program or driver that links to GPL code makes it GPL but a GPL program or driver linking none GPL code doesn’t make it GPL by magic and is legal.
This is a violation of the GPL “Spirit” but not a violation of the GPL license and the spirit ain’t nothing but a poor excuse to justify the holes of the GPL license.
Edited 2006-11-25 00:57
Sorry but you are wrong, I program or driver that links to GPL code makes it GPL but a GPL program or driver linking none GPL code doesn’t make it GPL by magic and is legal.
This is a violation of the GPL “Spirit” but not a violation of the GPL license and the spirit ain’t nothing but a poor excuse to justify the holes of the GPL license.
I’d rather use not infected by GPL term than violating GPL term. The sympthom of infected by GPL is, too many unnecessary thing to do to keep “infected”, and there is no way to get “cured”.
Edited 2006-11-25 14:44
and the spirit ain’t nothing but a poor excuse to justify the holes of the GPL license.
I disagree. The spirit of the GPL is contained in its preamble. Legal documents containing preamble does include it exactly for that reason: for clarifying how the document is supposed to be read if it contains “holes”. So violating the spirit of the GPL violates the intention of the license.
Sorry but you are wrong, I program or driver that links to GPL code makes it GPL but a GPL program or driver linking none GPL code doesn’t make it GPL by magic and is legal.
This is a violation of the GPL “Spirit” but not a violation of the GPL license and the spirit ain’t nothing but a poor excuse to justify the holes of the GPL license.
This is exactly right and something many people don’t get. The GPL license doesn’t convert the license of modules of code into GPL. The GPL license makes the whole work as a whole, open under the terms of the GPL, for those modules/classes that have a compatible license, at distribution time.
Once you start thinking about it being more about distribution, rather than linking, you get a better understanding of the GPL. Of course the GPL FAQ covers much of this.
But dynamic linking is still a gray area in the GPL. For example, if I take a pure GPL library, statically link it to some code, and then distribute it, it’s pretty clear that the whole work must be made “available” under the terms of the GPL. “Available” is the key word here. But as we see with the linux kernel and video and other drivers, things aren’t so simple. I’ve still never seen any legal precedence to “derived works” under a dynamic linking situation. And although kernel developers disagree on who is violating what, the fact is that relevant copyright holders aren’t willing to test it.
No, it’s a violation that only the user should decide to make. There is nothing cloudy about it. You cannot legally link GPL with non-GPL compatable code. This might have been different were the kernel licensed under LGPL, but the GPL specifically prohibits it.
Actually the GPL does not prohibit linking to non GPL code. The GPL prohibits distributing it but nothing else. In fact the GPL explicity says that you can do anything you want to the code. The exceptions only come into play if you are distributing code. The GPL is a license to distribute, not a EULA. There is a gray area when it comes to what you consider derived works and whether or not binary blobs can be distributed if they are tied in some way to the kernel, but Nvidia gets around that because their binary is universal. If it was Linux-only a case could be made against it but kernel developers don’t seem to be interested in those kinds of legal tangles anyway.
It’s not necessarily a violation of the GPL. It depends on the license of the binary blob, the way the blob interacts with the kernel and copyright laws in different countries and a gazillion other things.
//I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.
That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL.//
Excuse me? What terms exactly?
The video drivers and other “binary blob” components that are being distributed by Ubuntu aren’t GPL software.
Having GPL software on your system in no way requires that the systems has only GPL software installed on it.
I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.
Would you please provide a link to the part you read… because your statement below is simply not true:
That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL.
Blanket statement. Which are exactly the binary modules that explicitely violate the GPL? Nvidia? It doesn’t, because it doesn’t directly interact with the kernel. It uses a wrapper that is GPL on one hand, and is also compatible with Nvidia’s binary blob license.
Other modules, like wifi? I don’t use (k)ubuntu, but I was wondering what binary drivers they provide? If they got permission (from manufacturers) to distribute windows drivers and use it with ndiswrapper, than again, where is the explicit violation of the GPL? (again, the same case as with nvidia, ndiswrapper is GPL compatible).
I don’t mean to say that all of this is OK. Nvidia, at least I can understand, because trade secrets and real patents are involved (some of which don’t even belong to Nvidia, so they don’t have the right to GPL it or something). OTOH, using ndiswrapper is evil, b/c it encourages vendors to neglect linux users. Theo’s (OpenBSD) stance is the right one here (pressure vendors to provide specifications at least). Accepting linux binary blobs is also evil (now that might be a GPL violation, if they interact directly with the kernel!).
I don’t really care about (K)ubuntu criticism, but your statement is simply false or at the very least, misleading (not all binary blobs violate the GPL, especially explicitely as you claim). You either didn’t read “the part about binary blobs” very carefully, or simply want inflate the situation to make (K)ubuntu look worse than it really is.
IANAL, but I see the “proprietary via GPL bridge” case in the following way:
1) If the GPL part is supplied in the source-code form and compiled during installation, there is no way to claim GPL violation at all, since no distribution in the binary, linked form takes place.
2) However, if the GPL part is distributed already compiled and linked with the kernel, the situation is different. Let’s forget about the kernel for a minute and look at the GPL bridge and the proprietary blob first. While consisting of two parts, the bridge + blob combination is essentially a single work, since the intended purpose of the two is to work together and the former explicitly loads the latter. Now, being the copyright owner of both parts, NVidia has the right to combine them as they see fit, regardless of licenses, but the license for this combined work is not GPL! Therefore we have a non-GPL work linked to GPL kernel – which is a violation.
Good points, but your argument hinges on considering the blob+wrapper a single work. They are not. For instance, the blob works without the wrapper on other unix platforms (FreeBSD, Solaris), or non-unix platforms. They aren’t entirely separate either, for the blob communicates with the kernel through the wrapper, which is analogous with the GPL situation (the restrictive license of the blob communicates with the GPL licensed kernel through the wrapper as well
). At any rate, including the NVidia driver on the ISO is certainly not an explicit GPL violation – that was just rhetorics to make the situation sound more dramatic. NVidia’s case is at worst, a legal grey area, not explicit violation.
Another note: the wrapper is GPL compatible, not GPL itself as far as I know…
the blob works without the wrapper on other unix platforms
Yeah, but here we distribute them as part of a Linux distro, not just as a random collection of software bits. In this context, they are here with a specific purpose and don’t make sense without each other. This purpose (or intent) is what is likely to ultimately count in court.
At any rate, including the NVidia driver on the ISO is certainly not an explicit GPL violation
True, it’s more of a grey area – though I tend to see the situation in the darker shades of this color 😉
True, it’s more of a grey area – though I tend to see the situation in the darker shades of this color 😉
Me too
Or rather, I don’t want this practice to grow into a trend. I can understand NVidia’s situation – their graphics driver is a lot more complex than any wifi/nic/chipset driver, with IP licensed from 3rd parties, and information that might reveal trade secrets about their hardware. When it comes to other components (wifi for instance), the situation is quite different. Releasing specs won’t hurt the business of manufacturers at all, and more importantly, we have a lot more choice there, so we shouldn’t encourage manufacturers to continue their free software unfriendly policies (by either using ndiswrapper or accepting binary drivers).
As to distributions – well, they were always a grey area for me. When I first installed linux (Mandrake) years ago, the GPL license was presented during installation. But Mandrake – like any linux – had non GPL (but GPL compatible, like BSD) components. Can a distribution be licensed under the GPL – and what exactly is a distribution in this context? Me, I usually regard it as a collection of programs, in other words, aggregation, and I think this is a perfectly valid approach (so if Adobe gives you permission to distribute Acrobat Reader, I don’t see a problem in including it in an iso). Others consider a linux distro more as a whole, which is a perfectly fine interpretation too. The truth is somewhere between the two – you can’t really separate the kernel from glibc, because they simply don’t work without each other, but you can certainly separate KDE from the rest of the system (which works independently of the linux kernel inasmuch as it is portable between various unices).
Frankly, I don’t really understand why (K)ubuntu is pushing for inclusion of Nvidia/Ati drivers in ISOs. Their hardware detection is perfectly capable of identifying your hardware, and if you have ATI or Nvidia cards, it shouldn’t be too difficult to automatically create an install icon directly on the desktop. Clicking the icon would automatically download and install the driver, and all problems would be solved (and I very much doubt that this would make their distro unfriendly towards newbies, after all, windows does even less for you). So, although I don’t see a problem with the inclusion of NVidia/Ati drivers in a distro (except for the danger of this becoming a trend that extends to other components of your computer), I don’t consider it a wise decision either, knowing that others might think differently. Why not avoid this whole shitstorm, especially if there is an obvious and simple solution that would make everybody happy?
I’d probably also go for a link to the Nvidia/Ati drivers on the desktop or something similar.
However, perhaps it’s because Mark is serious about developing Linux in Africa (this is Ubuntu after all). It’s OK for most of you with your unbelievably fast cheep broadband – a 10 Meg download no problem. However, on a sub 33K modem paying 30 cents a minute on line that might drop out at any minute this is a big deal. In most of Africa this is the norm, even in South Africa if you are on a farm line.
I think it’s important that folk get the chance to use Linux – and that’s what Ubuntu etc is doing
I hope the openSUSE developers get a good price for their souls.
Canonical Ltd owns the Ubuntu trademark.
“Canonical Ltd. is a private company founded (and funded) by South African entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth for the promotion of free software projects. Canonical is registered in the tax haven Isle of Man and employs staff around the world, along with their main offices in London and support office in Montreal.”
Wikipedia
Other than not getting paid, what would be the difference in working for Canonical instead of Microsoft or Novell?
Other than not getting paid, what would be the difference in working for Canonical instead of Microsoft or Novell?
To those of great character and high integrity, standing up for what is right takes precedence over monetary gain or advancement at the expense of others. It is a quality I have witnessed much in the Linux community and I think that is a major difference…to answer your question.
To those of great character and high integrity, standing up for what is right takes precedence over monetary gain or advancement at the expense of others. It is a quality I have witnessed much in the Linux community and I think that is a major difference…to answer your question.
Canonical is a private company. Private companies don’t get much scrutiny. How do you know what its doing is “of great character and high integrity”?
I don’t know. Nor do I want to pontificate on what I (or others) think is in the hearts of Linux developers (like Canonical), although I think the product speaks for itself. I do know that from what I have seen and experienced, that the developers of Linux, by an overwhelming majority, have the interest of the many at heart, that they work to produce fine accomplishments not for the sake of money (although it helps!) but for the greater good of the world at large. That might sound corny to jaded folks, those whose lives revolve around what’s in it for them and/or the almighty dollar/Euro, etc…
My unprofessional view of a very complex situation is that MS is scared of Linux and, as the adage goes “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” applies in this deal that is producing all the controversy.
“What is right?” You don’t seem to understand here, not everyone has the same opinion of what right is.
Many people think of Shuttleworth’s pro-binary blob policy as wrong, many do not. Many view Novell’s actions as wrong, many do not. Many view OpenBSD’s vocal community actions as wrong, many do not.
Which group is right?
Well, OpenBSD’s community thinks it’s right for fighting for complete access to the source code of it’s operating system, ensuring it’s security and freedom. They are sick of waiting for a revolution that doesn’t exist to make everything open source, so they fight for it. Many outsiders think they alienate the open source world from hardware manufacturers by doing this, being a vocal group that openly calls companies liers and cheats and complains about things, often in massive waves. They think that OpenBSD is a bunch of big scarey monsters that sour the relationships that they the more mild people are trying to build in their own ways.
Novell thinks it’s right for trying to obtain a licensing agreement with Microsoft to ensure the safety of it’s customers from any potential legal repercussions. Many think it’s wrong, because it’s dealing with Microsoft, well, many companies deal with Microsoft, it’s hardly new and hardly evil to do so.
And Shuttleworth thinks he’s right because he wants to give the users of his system the best experience possible, regardless of how, to ensure that they stay Ubuntu users in the future and don’t go elsewhere. Many think it’s wrong because it’s using binaries instead of trying to open things up or not support things which are not going to be opened. They think that supporting any company that refuses to open up is hurting open source by not supporting those hardware makers who do support open source.
Not everyone is out for the big bucks, and getting those big bucks isn’t wrong when one does. A company has an obligation to make money for it’s shareholders you know, it’s not right to make 10 dollars where one could have made 12. As a publicly traded company, they must make as much money as possible, or they can and will be held accountable.
Canonical is not the Linux community, it’s not even a community, it’s a company, a company focused on making a Linux distribution to be sure, but a company. A community doesn’t have bills to pay or a bunch of shareholders – Novell has those, Canonical lacks the shareholders because it’s private, but it still has the bills. It’s not in any way a community member, it’s a company trying to direct and enhance the community for their purposes. Novell is doing the same thing.
Which is the right way? To try to protect your customers and dance with the devil ala Novell, or to wander on your own attacking anyone you think is your enemy ala OpenBSD, or is it to help the community with it’s problems and make a buck in the process ala Ubuntu?
It depends now doesn’t it? When one looks at it Novell is just as much a community member as Canonical is, likely more of one, in fact, since Novell has made or at least released the source code for more than Canonical has. Evolution and many other things have come from Novell, while there has been little new code coming out of Canonical, just the control of a distribution.
In truth, Microsoft has done what is right by all it’s standards. It is obligated in the same way as Novell to make the most bucks for as little bang as possible. They just happen to have made a lot and done things you don’t like.
Then maybe he should have said “standing up for what they think is right”, “having moral standards”.
For a lot of companies, Microsoft and Intel among them, it seems that “how much money can I get” is the only “moral standard” they understand, and the amount of people they screw over is either immaterial or a badge of honour.
So the way you see it, contributing programs for the benefit of a private company like Canonical is more “pure” than programmers writing programs for a publicly traded company like Microsoft or Novell or IBM?
Oh wait … open source programmers regularly write programs for the benefit of companies like IBM or Novell.
Its Microsoft thats EVIL. And Novell is EVIL jr.
The difference is that those programs benefit everyone else who chooses to use them or develop them further, they’re not owned by Canonical. canonical do have some closed source software too, but the vast majority of their development goes straight to the upstream projects.
So the way you see it, contributing programs for the benefit of a private company like Canonical is more “pure” than programmers writing programs for a publicly traded company like Microsoft or Novell or IBM?
Oh wait … open source programmers regularly write programs for the benefit of companies like IBM or Novell.
Its Microsoft thats EVIL. And Novell is EVIL jr.
So far you’ve posted this comment three times. I guess that you just can’t take a hint.
So far you’ve posted this comment three times. I guess that you just can’t take a hint.
I get modded down for being right all the time. I’m assuming you hate me being right.
I have not modded you down, but you are treading close to abusive spamming. we read the message the first time. An the second, and….
I generally disagree with your opinion at least partially but I have never modded you down since for the most part you are stating an (on this forum) unpopular opinion, but not trolling.
Please stop, enough is enough.
So the way you see it, contributing programs for the benefit of a private company like Canonical is more “pure” than programmers writing programs for a publicly traded company like Microsoft or Novell or IBM?
Oh wait … open source programmers regularly write programs for the benefit of companies like IBM or Novell.
Its Microsoft thats EVIL. And Novell is EVIL jr.
Trademark, Copyright, Patent… They are not the same thing or even close. In the US, they are all governed by very different laws. The Novell <—> Microsoft deal was a patent covenant which basicly says, “Hey, we won’t sue your customers so long as you dont break this agreement.”
A trademark is on a name. Would you like it if I signed up for other ‘nix/computer websites and started posting as NotParker? That is what a trademark is for.
So the way you see it, contributing programs for the benefit of a private company like Canonical is more “pure” than programmers writing programs for a publicly traded company like Microsoft or Novell or IBM?
Oh wait … open source programmers regularly write programs for the benefit of companies like IBM or Novell.
Its Microsoft thats EVIL. And Novell is EVIL jr.
Would you like it if I signed up for other ‘nix/computer websites and started posting as NotParker?
No. One NotParker is much more than enough!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.s…
Certainly doesn’t surprise me to hear something like the above from Shuttleworth .
There is an opportunity so he’ll use it & look all shiny .
If – then I’d recommend Debian instead
There seems to be some misinformation regarding how the nVidia graphics driver works. Several people on this thread have mentioned that you can’t link GPL code with a binary blob – that is correct; several people have mentioned that nVidia’s binary blob is illegal because it is linked to a GPL kernel – that is incorrect. nVidia’s driver is divided in two: a GPL kernel module and a binary blob. The binary blob is loaded dynamically by the kernel module.
So…
1. the nVidia GPL kernel module links to the GPL kernel -> legal;
2. the nVidia GPL kernel module loads the binary blob. It does _not_ link to it -> legal.
Like someone already said, you can say that is violates the spirit of GPL, but it certainly does _not_ violate the GPL.
Besides, if you like Ubuntu but dislike the non-free portions of it, you can use gNewSense ( http://www.gnewsense.org ). It’s your choice. And that’s the beauty of Free Software. 🙂
Edited 2006-11-25 01:21
Yes, but if the sole purpose of the kernel module is to load the binary blob, then how is it really any different?
That’s like a hired killing; the person who ordered the kill is just a guilty as the killer himself.
At least that’s the way I think the Law would see it.
Edited 2006-11-25 02:32
Thanks, that clears the NVIDIA issue for now.
Ubuntu will also be shipping ATI’s proprietary display drivers.
I think it works in a simular way but is the kernel module source code licensed under GPL or compatable?
Doesn’t look like it to me:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/f/fglrx-driver/…
“2. the nVidia GPL kernel module loads the binary blob. It does _not_ link to it -> legal.”
Sorry, I don’t really understand that one. Isn’t dynamically loading the code and using it nothing more than dynamically linking it?
On the other side, one could argue that any userspace app linking to kernel calls would then also violate GPL. But here, the kernel devs explicitely state, that they don’t see it as a violation. They explicitely state otherwise in regards to the binary drivers (which nearly all work in the fashion of nVidia) though!
PERIOD.
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=gpl
“That’s it, it is very simple. I’ve had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I’ve talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it’s very simple.
Now no lawyer will ever come out in public and say this, as lawyer really aren’t allowed to make public statements like this at all. But if you hire one, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting, they will advise you of this issue.”
This issue has been beaten to death by Greg Kroah-Hartman and some other core kernel developers.
This issue has been beaten to death by Greg Kroah-Hartman and some other core kernel developers.
Including Linus, who unlike GKH, points out the derived work clause.
The nvidia binary driver is a universal blob that works on win and *nix using an OS-specific kernel wrapper. As Linus pointed out, it would be hard to consider the blob a derived work of the linux kernel.
Now no lawyer will ever come out in public and say this, as lawyer really aren’t allowed to make public statements like this at all. But if you hire one, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting, they will advise you of this issue.”
And that is a cop-out from him. The internet is littered with lawyers giving their unsolicited opinion on everything under the sun. Lawyers are not regulated or restricted from making statements like this.
Besides, nvidia’s lawyers seem to have a different opinion owing to the fact that nvidia makes *pre-compiled* kernel modules available for download specifically for Novell at Novell’s request, and probably at Novell’s expense as well because I’m not aware of any other distro they specifically maintain a repo for. Novell, of course, being GKH’s employer.
Now the kernel wrapper is compiled against the kernel, which puts it under GPL licensing. Yet it is distributed linked to a binary blob and distributed from nvidia’s own public server (ftp://download.nvidia.com/novell). Clearly this would be a violation, so how are they doing it? It’s not like nvidia is new to the linux game.
Maybe the fact that no lawyer will come out in public and say it is “illegal” means that it is a grey area and one that does not, in fact, have a definitive answer. After all, if the law was black and white we would not need lawyers in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily saying binary drivers are GPL compatible. I’m just saying that not all binary drivers are necessarily GPL incompatible.
Hmmmm. Comment Score: 0 — at time of reading.
Are you sure you want to vote this comment -1?
———————————————-
“Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language” Well, not really.
“Yes, this comment is off-topic” Well, not really.
“Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements” Well, not really.
“Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion” Aha! That’s the one! *clicks*
…
“Disagreeing with a comment or a user is not a valid reason to use the moderate. Comment votes are alloted to draw attention to insightful and informative comments and remove trash and trolls from our forums. They should not be used to remove comments with which you do not agree.”
Post may fit #2
Edited 2006-11-25 07:53
> Now the kernel wrapper is compiled against the kernel,
> which puts it under GPL licensing. Yet it is
> distributed linked to a binary blob and distributed
> from nvidia’s own public server
> (ftp://download.nvidia.com/novell). Clearly this would
> be a violation, so how are they doing it?
Nvidia shouls have no problems doing this, since they own the copyright on both the GPL wrapper, and the binary blob. As a developer, you have to GPL the _wrapper_ because its a derivative work of the kernel, but your ovn binary blob isnt a derivative of the kernel, since the same blob is used for example on windows.
One now could argue whether the blob is a derivative work of the wrapper or not, but it isnt a derivative of the kernel and it certainly doesnt stop Nvidia distribute it under any licence they as the developers see fit. Also i dont know if this wrapper can perform some function _without_ the blob, so that one could argument it not depending on the binary blob.
As how they are doing it: They just violate the GPL when distributing the wrapper under the GPL, and hope to be so valuable for the Linux community, that nobody would enforce the GPL in their case. And nobody has done it yet for precisely the same reason.
Ubuntu should have an even larger problem, since redistributing the blob which depends on the GPL wrapper to work would be an even more clear GPL violation.
We just have to wait until someone tries to enforce the GPL in this case, if Shuttleworth and Nvidia exaggregate their GPL violations. My bet would go for GKH & Co. and for an successfull cease and desist against Ubuntu and also against Nvidia. It would just be stupid to do it _now_ or soon, since Nvidia doesnt really depend on selling their cards to some few linux users. They should wait until not GPLing the blob would hurt Nvidias sales so much, that they couldnt violate the GPL nor completely ignore the linux community.
Edited 2006-11-25 09:51
Novell could ask Nvidia to get the rights to distribute directly the drivers with SuSE.
But they haven’t. Because it’s illegal. So they wanted the responsibility for distributing the drivers to be on the shoulder of NVidia. That’s why there’s this Novell repository on nvidia.com.
I just learned that Mark S. not only invited openSUSE developers from his blog post, but he actually mailed the opensuse list about it. This is very unnecessary.
Read the following post from an Ubuntu developer/contributor: http://www.advogato.org/person/Burgundavia/diary.html?start=113
The reply from “Shark Muddleworth” is priceless.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-November/022578….
I just learned that Mark S. not only invited openSUSE developers from his blog post, but he actually mailed the opensuse list about it. This is very unnecessary.
It was tacky, but this is the same guy who announced he was going to make KDE a first-class citizen on *buntu immediately following the overblown Novell gnome/kde announcement.
Still waiting.
Read the following post from an Ubuntu developer/contributor: http://www.advogato.org/person/Burgundavia/diary.html?start=113
The reply from “Shark Muddleworth” is priceless.
http://andreasjaeger.blogspot.com/index.html
Steve Beineri: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/457
Daniel Molkentin: http://daniel.molkentin.de/blog/index.php?/archives/58-Ubuntus-Ques…
And for bonus points, Johnathan Riddell, Kubuntu’s sole KDE dev: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/57
It was tacky, but this is the same guy who announced he was going to make KDE a first-class citizen on *buntu immediately following the overblown Novell gnome/kde announcement.
Still waiting.
http://www.kubuntu.org ??
Why is it ridiculous? How else would he contact the openSUSE developers? Should he assume openSUSE developers read his blog?
The rediculousness lies in the fact that he has done something like this, the blog entry was in bad taste but his e-mail goes into the realm of hurting Ubuntu’s image by association.
He’s implying moral superiourity while making a complete ass of himself on the Internet.
He shouldn’t have said anything, let alone blogged about how everyone should work on his project istead of their own.
I really hope the OpenSUSE developers issue a public letter to Shuttleworth to politely say “screw you, and screw Ubuntu”. I really feel Novell will keep the OpenSUSE developers as one of their first priorities, given the SLES contracts for governments, hospitals, businesses, and for the businesses that use SLED, I think Novell will continue to give the OpenSUSE developers whatever they need, since their work, their developments have helped Novell acquire a wider range of a customer base. Also since Ubuntu has made the SLED menu available for installation, I saw a picture of Kubuntu with the new KDE menu that’s going to be in 10.2, and now inviting the OpenSUSE developers over to Ubuntu? The Ubuntu people are shaping up to be leeches, since they don’t seem to have anything innovative the OpenSUSE people can put into their system, they really need to be put in their place. They should really quite looking at what others are doing, and develop their own distribution that is up to enterprise/corporate quality or go hire unemployed developers and visionaries who can help raise Ubuntu up to the enterprise level, and stop taking from Novell’s people. So please OpenSUSE developers, issue a joint letter giving a big royal “screw you” to Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu.
I hope those guys know what their doing and stick with Compiz instead of Beryl. Compiz actually works great on old/crappy hardware. Last time I’ve checked Beryl was just like the old “compiz-quinn” package: slow and buggy but damn prettier. I think it’s style over substance and I hope Ubuntu devs choose what’s best for the majority.
Since there are quite a lot more distros out there than just Ubuntu, it’s interesting to see why exactly Mark Shuttleworth would feel to be able to do this.
It seems that Ubuntu has become in a way, the überdistro of Linux at the moment. The free shipit CDs are a great success. You need only one CD, fashionably this CD boots live first, it all mostly works, and as it is the first Linux distro that many Windows-users have ever seen, and/or the first Linux distro people could get to work after trying Red Hat in 1999 or trying Debian in 2003 or something, *Buntu is now the cool Linux distro.
Only with this idea in the back of your mind could it be logical to think, “well, now that Novell is doing questionable things, we’ll just invite OpenSuse devs to come over to us – us being the coolest distro at the moment.”
So here we already see [sorry Mark] the arrogance that comes up when success is getting a little too automatic. I’d say that you don’t need any OpenSuse devs that can’t think for themselves if they want to leave one place and apply for another.
Also, the fact that Canonical (although a company) seems to make no profit yet misguides some into thinking that *Buntu is somehow less “polluted” by corporate motives, and therefore a politically more correct distro. Well, since *Buntu has yet to make Canonical some profit, and Mark’s money being plenty but limited, I’d say it’s more of a risk to work on *Buntu.
The everlasting blob issue in *Buntu is an example of this. No, it may not violate the GPL, but it creates all the controversy and should simply be avoided. This would, however, lead to *Buntu losing some of its initial beginner-friendliness.
(My disclaimer is that I prefer Fedora Core (and OpenSuse for that matter) for avoiding “shipping” all non-free stuff (call FC crippled, but I never missed the 3D-desktop effects, and I never had to fix a kernel panic), and I like Red Hat for backing Fedora with money. It’s not the corporations, it’s what they do, really.)
A lot of good things can be said about Ubuntu, but it shouldn’t need OpenSuse to die in order to live.
[I do think both Fedora and OpenSuse could thrive by assimilating some of Ubuntu’s clever PR.
]
It’s also important to remember that a GPL software user *can not* violate the GPL. If the user chooses to link in pirated, proprietary, patent-laden software from hell, the GPL has nothing to say about it. This is not a loophole – this is the spirit of the license to a tee.
> If the user chooses to link in pirated, proprietary,
> patent-laden software from hell, the GPL has nothing to
> say about it.
Of course it hasn’t.
The developers (Nvidia) or the redistributor (Ubuntu) would just act illegally if they distribute the wrapper under the GPL when it needs this binary blob to work.
This is the same reason Jörg Schillings cdrecord was thrown out of debian, for violating the GPL: because his GPL work, cdrecord, needs an additional non-GPL package to build, which isnt some essential system library.
Just to be clear:
1) My point only addressed users, not developers (or anyone that would distribute the result).
2) I’m not arguing either side of the Ubuntu-Nvidia situation, just making a general observation that might add to the discussion.
“This is the same reason Jörg Schillings cdrecord was thrown out of debian, for violating the GPL”
I’m not familiar with this event, so could you please give some references? Your description doesn’t sound like a GPL violation per se, but Debian often adopts a stricter definition of “free”. At the very least, Debian isn’t going to be very interested in shipping a program they can’t reasonably (meaning, consistent with their principles) provide to the user as a whole.
“This is the same reason Jörg Schillings cdrecord was thrown out of debian, for violating the GPL”
I’m not familiar with this event, so could you please give some references?
Here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
http://ganneff.de/blog/2006/09/04#cdrkit
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00002.html
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/otherosfs/wodim
BTW, Ubuntu continues to ship cdrtools/cdrecord.
> I’m not familiar with this event, so could you please
> give some references?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
> Your description doesn’t sound like a GPL violation per
> se, but Debian often adopts a stricter definition of
> “free”.
No, this was discussed strictly as a GPL violation. The debian fork of cdrtools, cdrkit, was also a result of this problem.
Distributing a GPL product which requires an non GPL tool to build, which is not a standard system tool usually distributed with operating systems is a GPL violation.
If this werent a GPL violation it would mean that you could distribute GPL programs that only work with additional tools, which could be proprietary and require a fee to use. The GPL prevents such a scenario.
It is a GPL violation of the nvidia wrapper if this wrapper does not perform some function or is not able to build without this binary blob. In this case they are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL but they do.
>Distributing a GPL product which requires an non GPL tool to build, which is not a standard system tool usually distributed with operating systems is a GPL violation.
No it isn’t even the FSF doesn’t say this, though they do recommend to find another solution
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
“http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109“
Thank you for the link. However, the discussion seems to center around the fact that the GPL software and the CDDL build system where distributed together (i.e., more than “mere aggregation”). It was not an argument about linking GPL software to non-GPL software or GPL software with non-GPL dependecies. For more information, see the Java Trap link posted by progster and the following items from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
By my understanding, copyright holders can license their source under any license they see fit. Whether that work is valuable or reasonably redistributable by a third party is a different matter. In fact, it may be strictly undistributable in binary form (putting it off-limits to a distro like Debian). But since the source is GPL, a third party can take the valuable parts and toss the rest, which seems to be exactly the outcome of the cdrtools/cdrkit case.
[i]The developers (Nvidia) or the redistributor (Ubuntu) would just act illegally if they distribute the wrapper under the GPL when it needs this binary blob to work.[i/]
Wrong. It’s perfectly legal to distribute GPL’ed sources linked to non-GPL’ed sources. It is however not legal to distribute proprietary packages linked to GPL’ed packages.
But GPL can always link to non-GPL. However, non-GPL becomes GPL when linked to GPL. That’s also why you can distribute the nVidia-drivers. If distributing the nVidia-driver was truly a GPL-violation FSF would have attacked nVidia long ago.
NVidia isn’t distributing the driver with the kernel linked. They are merely distruting a blob and a wrapper.
What is illegal is to distribute the nvidia driver already linked with the kernel.
What the user at home or at work does is no one business.
But if a distributor links the driver with the kernel and ships it, it’s illegal, period. They don’t have the right to do it.
It is not necessarily illegal. It depends on how the linking happens. _If_ the binary blob links to the wrapper it’s illegal, but if it’s the wrapper that links to the binary blob it’ll be perfectly legal.
And distributing the binary blob along side the kernel is under no circumstances illegal, if the blob hasn’t been installed. One could download the driver-package from nVidia, put it on an install-cd and unpack the driver during installation. In that case it will be perfectly legal, since the source wrapper hasn’t been compiled yet, and the binary blob links to nothing.
I’d really like to see someone like you facing an attorney.
“Hey, they just put bittorrent links of Windows Vista ! they aren’t distributing it, i swear! it’s just Links”
You won’t go very far with this kind of defense. Don’t try to circumvent the GPL. Putting this on the install CD and automagically installing it without having the user doing it all by himself is clearly illegal.
The law doesn’t care of the details, they care about the intentions. You can get your ass raped for having put a .torrent of something illegal. Why it should be different when someone is getting cute with the GPL ?
I’m tired of seeing all those people who’s only goal on their pitiful life is not respecting the license of the programs they use. If you don’t like what the GPL mean, you are free to use something else, we won’t miss you.
Microsoft and Apple EULA are waiting for you.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061116103031303
Read this.
” Now, if you’re a certain type of business sharpie, you may thumb your nose and say, so sue me. And indeed that is a tempting possibility. But before you insist, ask yourself this: if two parties go to court in a dispute, and one party says, we knew about the license, and we knew what the terms were, and we deliberately couched our agreement to bypass the clear purpose and the intent of the license when we thought we’d figured out a loophole, do you really believe for a minute that any court of equity will endorse such behavior? ”
Truth is, you loose. You can’t do something like that, period.
Edited 2006-11-25 18:57
“Hey, they just put bittorrent links of Windows Vista ! they aren’t distributing it, i swear! it’s just Links”
It depends whether I link to the bittorrent files directly or only links to a site with bittorrent links. The latter one is perfectly legal in Denmark, while the first one (deep linking) is unclear. Sometimes people are convicted, but not always.
You won’t go very far with this kind of defense. Don’t try to circumvent the GPL. Putting this on the install CD and automagically installing it without having the user doing it all by himself is clearly illegal.
Nope, it is not illegal. Circumventing a license is not illegal per se. Putting non-GPL’ed code on a CD with GPL’ed code is perfectly legal, as long as the non-GPL’ed code doesn’t link to the GPL’ed code. And since the .zip’ed driver doesn’t link to anything it is perfectly legal to distribute and perform automatic unpacking and installation. It is clearly within the word of the GPL even if it is outside the spirit of the GPL (and it clearly is outside the spirit – but that is however irrelevant, since the GPL is technically not violated).
The Microsoft EULA and the Apple EULA is mostly void in Denmark according to “Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret – Lbk. nr. 725 af 6. juli 2005”.
I can do anything with GPL’ed software as long as I don’t distribute. On my own system I can link to anything I want to. The GPL kicks in when I distribute the software. The GPL is _not_ an EULA. It is merely a license and not a license _agreement_.
Distributing the nVidia driver in .zip’ed uninstalled format alongside the GPL’ed Linux kernel is perfectly legal since the linking is happening on _my_ machine. It is unlinked in distributed form and therefore perfectly legal according to the GPL.
As the GPL says in 2. (last paragraph): “In addition, 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.”
Distributing the non-installed .zip’ed nVidia driver is merely aggregation of another work not based on the Program on the same medium as the Program.
“I can do anything with GPL’ed software as long as I don’t distribute. On my own system I can link to anything I want to. The GPL kicks in when I distribute the software. The GPL is _not_ an EULA. It is merely a license and not a license _agreement_. ”
You, as a user, you have the right to do that.
Ubuntu, as a distributor, don’t have the right to link the kernel AND distribute it. We don’t care if the “linking is happening on the machine”. It’s Ubuntu that did the work. It’s like putting a bittorrent link to download vista on an Ubuntu setup automagically when it’s installed and saying “it’s happening on the User machine ! we did nothing. It’s not ubuntu developers that download the vista torrent, it’s them ! they are downloading it !”.
Please, grow up. The world isn’t as easy to f–k as you think it is.
“The latter one is perfectly legal in Denmark,”
Please, don’t speak about denmark laws. We don’t care. It’s a very small country. It’s not denmark that will decide the future of the linux desktop.
USA, Canada, England, Japan, France, Germany, and perhaps a little spice of China and India.
Denmark law doesn’t count shit when we talk about developing software. Software developers will not make something just for this little, small, country, if the software is doing something illegal in the USA, Japan or France.
Come back when you know if this “latter one” is legal in the USA, France or Japan.
Edited 2006-11-25 21:33
Hmm…
I don’t know what to think.
As i said, come back when you can say it’s legal in USA or France. Then, we’ll care about this issue.
It is legal in France and all other EU-countries. And most likely legal in USA as well, since Tivoization is legal according to GPL v.2.
Your reply to me is opposite of what you wrote in this post:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16562&comment_id=185318
“It is legal in France and all other EU-countries. And most likely legal in USA as well, since Tivoization is legal according to GPL v.2. ”
It’s a closed platform hardware. But they give back the source code, YES, they give back. It’s just that you don’t have the right to modify a Tivo machine, because of the DRM system. You can’t modify the HARDWARE.
http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp
All the kernel modifications are published by Tivo.
This issue have NOTHING to do with binary NVidia driver. The TiVo issue is more about philosophy (and the GPL3) than about legal GPL2 issue.
They give back everything they did to the linux kernel.
By comparing NVidia to TiVo you’re just showing up your ignorance. This will be my last reply.
Edited 2006-11-25 21:47
It’s a closed platform hardware. But they give back the source code, YES, they give back. It’s just that you don’t have the right to modify a Tivo machine, because of the DRM system. You can’t modify the HARDWARE.
To continue the off-topic issue of the Tivo a bit farther, you don’t have the right to modify the code, then run it on the Tivo, either.
And it’s not because of their signed kernel image, it’s because doing so is a violation of the agreement that, in theory, you agreed to when you bought the box.
EULA’s are a bit like software patents– You might be opposed to them, but until you get it thrown out in court, it’s still the contract you agreed to.
So, the whole point of the GPLv3 is to prevent Tivo from preventing you from doing something you can’t do legally anyway. Cool, huh?
Oh, and don’t delude yourself into thinking that GPLv3 will make it easier to hack your Tivo. I expect they’ll switch to an RTOS, since they make their cash not from the hardware, but from the service subscriptions.
“Oh, and don’t delude yourself into thinking that GPLv3 will make it easier to hack your Tivo”
But. I. Never. Said. That.
I even said, before, that were was alternatives to the linux kernel if we don’t like the GPL, there’s no point with sticking to it.
I’m not “deluding myself” that the GPL3 will bring freedom to people who doesn’t wants it (TiVo).
The software that will switch to GPL3 won’t even be the ones that would make a difference. The GNU toolchain is not installed on a TiVo. And the linux kernel will never, never, switch to the gpl3.
So even when the GPL3 will be ready, nothing will change for TiVo. All the things they need will stay GPL2, bsd licensed or whatever it is already.
I think TiVo is a good citizen. I don’t see a problem with someone who’s using linux on a closed platform, is they are making available the code of the GPL modified software. And they do give back all the code of the GPL softwares.
You don’t have the right to modify a TiVo, so what ? build your own hardware, take back the GPL code TiVo gave us, build your own user space UI. You’re free to do it.
TiVo is doing better than the competitors that will rent their hardware. Because if you only rent and don’t own the hardware you can’t ask them to give back the GPL code.
TiVo give back the GPL code because they sell the box to you. Others do not, because the box are rented.
(the modem-routers that some ISP are ‘renting’ to us doesn’t have to give back the GPL code, unlike a modem/router that you buy at the computer store.)
That’s a hole that even the GPL3 cannot fix. Asking the ISP to give back the GPL code if they are renting you the modem and not selling it, is not permitted by law. A software license won’t fix that.
“Ubuntu, as a distributor, don’t have the right to link the kernel AND distribute it.”
The GPL is not invoked unless the distribution is lawfully considered more than mere aggregation. From the GPL text:
“In addition, 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.”
In my own interpretation, placing both on the install CD or in the distro’s package manager is only mere aggregation.
EDIT: Clarified that the second quote from from the GPL.
Edited 2006-11-25 21:53
And putting a Vista torrent on the CD is mere aggregation. It’s the user fault if they download Vista with it !
What are you trying to argue? If such an action is in violation of the Vista EULA, then it would be illegal, and the distro would be in a world of hurt. The FSF would have no legal objection, however. The Nvidia driver license does not prohibit this style of distribution.
This is the same reason Jörg Schillings cdrecord was thrown out of debian, for violating the GPL: because his GPL work, cdrecord, needs an additional non-GPL package to build, which isnt some essential system library.
Nope, this is factual somewhat incorrect. cdrecord was not removed because it needed a non-GPL package. It was removed because J̦rg Schilling changed the license of cdrecord from GPL to CDDL, while other parts of cdrtools stayed under the GPL. This resulted in CDDL-packages to link against GPL-packages Рand that is a violation. Having GPL to link against non-GPL is however perfectly legal, unless the non-GPL license state otherwise (depending on copyright laws).
At least, that’s what is stated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools
I see most of the advocates for a totally free Linux distribution use the GPL as their sole arguement. While purity and vigilance are admirable traits, I don’t see the point in the real world. None of us run a completely free OS. The Linux community doesn’t exist in a bubble. Hardware requires drivers, and some of it is not open source. And believe it or not, some of the best software written is not FOSS (sorry Linux zealots, it’s true).
So *other* than the GPL arguement (which I believe is a red herring because I can’t believe that many posters are lawyers or REALLY care – You’re just jumping on the bandwagon), why is including proprietary drivers that we NEED a bad thing? If they are freely available to download and use, what is the legal ramifications of providing them? Obviously not much, as there are several distros out there that provided those drivers before Canonical even existed.
You want Linux to take over Windows and be easier for newbies to convert. Giving them the ability to use all the hardware they own is necessary. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
It’s not a case of “proprietary is bad”, it’s a case of “respect what the developers meant in their license”, period.
We, free software users, aren’t distributing illegal copies of windows or doing something that’s not permitted in the EULA. Why should it be different with proprietary guys ? why should we let them do something that’s NOT permitted in OUR license ?
“So *other* than the GPL arguement (which I believe is a red herring because I can’t believe that many posters are lawyers or REALLY care – You’re just jumping on the bandwagon)”
Most of the kernel developers thinks proprietary drivers stink and are NOT allowed by the GPL. What Linus Torvalds and others did, is, merely TOLERATE some drivers, openening a door to the closed drivers in the form of a “permitted” EXPORT_SYMBOL. They are in the process of shutting all of the kernel doors the proprietary drivers can access.
No driver can use the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL without being itself GPL compatible. A driver that uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL must be derivative of the kernel. And as the kernel evolve, the developers are shifting more and more export symbol into EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. In one or two years, all the USB subsystem will be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and usb ndiswrapper keys will be illegal, for example. They will have to do their own user-space usb drivers.
OK, that makes sense.
However, my “not living in a bubble” statement stands. If the kernel developers lock-out proprietary drivers, I don’t think it will benefit anyone. Not me… it’ll just give me a reason to go back to Windows. Linux developers may be for FOSS, but hardware must still be purchased. Hardware vendors need money to make a living, do R&D, produce new products and market them. Hardware vendors have a need for privacy to protect their products, patents and shareholder interest. I understand many drivers are reverse-engineered – I’m not talking about those. If all hardware vendors open sourced their drivers, it could affect their edge in the competitive market. ATI vs nVidia is a prime example. I can see right away why vendors prefer to write for Windows instead of Linux. I don’t think market share is the reason, it’s that Microsoft, in all its’ faults, respects their privacy. The GPL doesn’t want any secrets, and that is not always a good thing. I certaintly don’t want to see any hardware vendors going away because the Linux license pushed them to revealing too much. What would the world be like without nVidia vs ATI, Intel vs AMD, PC vs MAC, etc?
No doubt that FOSS and the GPL has its’ place, but everybody has to realize the double edged sword it created. The stronger that Linus and the developers push to enforce the GPL, the more they will hurt themselves in the end.
I personally would love to buy a brand new PC that supported Linux out of the box by the vendors, instead of waiting 2 years for someone to figure out the hardware and write substandard open-source drivers.
The world doesn’t revolve around Linux. If you want proprietary drivers badly, you can use FreeBSD.
They have a license that does not prohibate the use of proprietary drivers. It’s a “more free” license.
You know what ? FreeBSD supports most of the modern hardware, just like linux. And unlike the linux kernel, they are not against the existence of a “ndiswrapper-like”. They distribute officialy a “ndiswrapper-like”, called “Project Evil” that empower you by using the windows ndis drivers inside freebsd.
I don’t understand why the people who doesn’t like the GPL sticks with Linux. Linux is not THAT much better than FreeBSD. If you don’t like the GPL, use FreeBSD, it’s a fine system.
See this :
http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html
Unlike the linux drivers, the FreeBSD drivers are perfectly legal. So, if you need them and FreeBSD supports your hardware, support the FreeBSD project and not a project like Linux that doesn’t fit your goals.
Edited 2006-11-25 15:37
Your point is quite good, but FreeBSD still lacks something like UbuntuBSD. PC-BSD is on this but Ubuntu has a very good software base thanks to Debian (big repository of fairly recent version of apps) and there’s still lots of software that is developed with Linux in mind and porting it to other operating systems takes time, HAL has only recently been ported to FreeBSD for example.
On the contrary, despite the FBSD community’s protestations to the contrary, Linux’s hardware support is MUCH better (despite qualms over binary blobs which the FBSD folks claim not to worry about), and their communities tend to be much more helpful and more polite.
I realise that “politeness” is orthogonal to the question for many FBSD folks, but that’s exactly the problem.
In fact OpenBSD claims to support more wireless chipsets than FBSD without using binary blobs.
Linux hardware support is really better, but not that MUCH.
And openBSD, yes, support more wireless chipsets, if you only speak of free driver. FreeBSD has less free wireless driver.
But Project Evil can run so much more wireless drivers from Windows XP it makes openBSD looks like crap.
And with this wireless exception, openbsd doesn’t support as much hardware as FreeBSD does. FreeBSD can run the proprietary NVidia driver, that’s more important for 99% of the desktop folks than some obscure crypto card.
I think you need to step back and look at the stupid thing you posted. How many platforms does FreeBSD support? How many does OpenBSD?
You just declared that FreeBSD supports more hardware than OpenBSD – how well does it run on a Zaurus? How’s it’s SD support going? How’s that Alpha port doing?
OpenBSD supports different hardware from FreeBSD, not less. OpenBSD’s drivers run on multiple hardware platforms, a feat unachievable through Project Evil.
Running FreeBSD on a macppc machine makes it look like crap, nothing works. OpenBSD runs rather well, strange that.
FreeBSD supports more i386-based hardware components with i386-specific solutions, it has superior SMP support, it even has a larger developer base.
Wireless is not the exception to the rule for OpenBSD either, look at the hardware RAID support of OpenBSD and compare it to FreeBSD’s, or the crypto support. In several areas of development OpenBSD leads FreeBSD, and vice versa – William Paul (wpaul) of FreeBSD has been quite good at getting new nic drivers, OpenBSD generally lags behind FreeBSD there because of it.
Don’t go saying stupid shit that is entirely bogus, it just makes you look like a fool.
OpenBSD chooses not to try running binary gunk in it’s kernel space, that’s important to the security folks, and that’s what matters. OpenBSD is not developed for you, it’s not developed for me, it’s developed for the developers – they want security, not popularity.
And regarding your Linux bit, Linux support is not better or worse, it is different. There are more drivers out there which do not always work well together, so depending on what you’ve got it can be much better for your needs, in other situations you’ll be lucky to get a driver that supports your wireless card without requiring your entire system to be updated to a new version.
I’m talking about our beloved desktop. You are making a wordsalad. For a desktop user openBSD has near zero hardware support if compared to FreeBSD and Linux.
Edited 2006-11-25 21:25
No, you made a blanket statement, “openbsd doesn’t support as much hardware as FreeBSD does,” you said. And you’re still talking complete nonsense.
For the desktop the only difference between FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Solaris, openSUSE and OpenBSD is what version of X they are running, and what additional software you run with said X. It’s all the same otherwise, X is X.
The binary blobs used by one system is hardly worth noticing in the scope of desktop usage, if you’re looking to run 3d acceleration, then sure, your FreeBSD box with almost half-assed binary drivers for some cards may make your 3d acceleration work, most of the time no, the Linux binary drivers are always more up-to-date and have improved functionality.
OpenBSD lacks the 3d acceleration provided by the binaries, that only effects video games and modelling. Last I heard not everyone needs 3d in order to check their e-mail, play vorbis .oggs, run Opera, watch movies and browse the net.
If you’re going to make a complaint against OpenBSD’s desktop usage, at least understand what you’re talking about – OpenBSD has a hard time handling threading properly, so some programmes can bog down under heavy loads.
Lacking a binary driver that barely does what it is supposed to for a handful of cards is not a big issue for desktop usage. Regular usage of a desktop doesn’t require 3d accelerators, that is the only thing that OpenBSD does not have that your run of the mill Linux distribution or FreeBSD has. That’s hardly, “near zero hardware support,” it’s supporting the open source stuff that comes with X.
”
For the desktop the only difference between FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Solaris, openSUSE and OpenBSD is what version of X they are running, and what additional software you run with said X. It’s all the same otherwise, X is X. ”
No, openbsd doesn’t support as much desktop hardware as FreeBSD. I’m not ONLY talking about graphic cards, so don’t tell me “X is X”.
You quoted Solaris. Just LOL. Solaris supports litteraly nothing of the x86 desktop market.
Edited 2006-11-25 21:52
Solaris runs just fine on i386s kid.
And what other components then? Name them, say where the hardware lacks, I f–king call you out nicolasb. You’re trolling.
What hardware is there that is desktop specific? Come on kid, let’s have it.
and their communities tend to be much more helpful and more polite.
Not true. Came from mandrake to freebsd (mandrake at that time had a very helpful community) – and I found the FreeBSD folks very very helpful. In fact, the community is one of the asset that made me stay. I’m referring to bsdforums or @freebsd-questions. They expect you to do your homework (they really put a lot of effort to write good documentation) – but even if you fail, they RTFM you very politely
I also found developers very helpful – I had problems with sound (with skype) and the multimedia@freebsd folks helped me, even though I was an obvious newbie at that time. So did the usb folks.
I don’t know where this myth comes from – I still use linux occasionally (and visit support forums), but I can tell you without hesitation that the FreeBSD community is one of the friendliest I ever saw. (there will be exceptions of course, but if you really look at the general trend – by visiting bsdforums.org or browsing the mailing list archaives – you’ll be surprised!).
The next version of FBSD will contain the free non-binary blob version of the wireless drivers…
Just to let you know.
Of ALL the drivers supported by the NDIS simulator ? certainly, NOT.
If the kernel developers lock-out proprietary drivers, I don’t think it will benefit anyone. Not me… it’ll just give me a reason to go back to Windows.
That would be the last, and least credible motive to ever start using Windows.
Linux developers may be for FOSS, but hardware must still be purchased. Hardware vendors need money to make a living, do R&D, produce new products and market them.
That’s right. Not much wrong with that.
Hardware vendors have a need for privacy to protect their products, patents and shareholder interest.
Usually, the shareholders haven’t the faintest idea what those specs are about. Patents must be public anyway, otherwise how can anyone know how to avoid violating them? So that makes no sense.
If you mean code specific to devices, I wouldn’t want to be the shareholder of a manufacturer that believes that the only way to survive is to keep secrets about the stuff you make. Innovation is for those with guts, not fear.
I understand many drivers are reverse-engineered – I’m not talking about those. If all hardware vendors open sourced their drivers, it could affect their edge in the competitive market.
That’s an odd statement. “If all hardware vendors open sourced their drivers”, noone’s “edge” is of course affected. Think about it: why do Intel and AMD cross license?
… I can see right away why vendors prefer to write for Windows instead of Linux. I don’t think market share is the reason, it’s that Microsoft, in all its’ faults, respects their privacy.
Please, don’t make me accuse you of being naive. “Prefer to write for Windows”, does that mean “prefer to survive” in your language?
The GPL doesn’t want any secrets, and that is not always a good thing. I certaintly don’t want to see any hardware vendors going away because the Linux license pushed them to revealing too much. What would the world be like without nVidia vs ATI, Intel vs AMD, PC vs MAC, etc?
Look, it’s real simple. You buy a pieve of hardware, so you pay the people that produce that. That sounds good. Then you want that piece of hardware to work. The better it works, the better the product. The crucial question remains, how do you make it work without opening up? There’s no way of knowing what goes on in a kernel panic if you put a blob in it. That’s cool for Microsoft, but it’s not for free software. Anyway it inhibits innovation. No pc hardware business model has ever proven to be viable in the long run if it’s based on secrecy of something essential.
No doubt that FOSS and the GPL has its’ place, but everybody has to realize the double edged sword it created. The stronger that Linus and the developers push to enforce the GPL, the more they will hurt themselves in the end.
Has Linus T ever displayed more than average zeal for the GPL? I have yet to see the type of hurt you refer to. I would have no idea. IBM and HP, for example don’t seem to feel that Linux threatens any hardware makers’ business, ironically. Someone told me they’re some of the big guys.
I personally would love to buy a brand new PC that supported Linux out of the box by the vendors, instead of waiting 2 years for someone to figure out the hardware and write substandard open-source drivers.
Me too. I did buy a brand new PC, and everything just worked, after I put my first Suse 9.1 in the drive. Admitted, that was before I heard of wobbly windows. Nevertheless, I’ve had a blobless existence for more than two years, and I don’t think I’ve missed out much.
I’d also suggest you go for the PS3, that runs great with Linux.
“No pc hardware business model has ever proven to be viable in the long run if it’s based on secrecy of something essential.”
Should read
“No pc hardware business model has ever proven to be viable in the long run.”
Secrecy or lack thereof has not proven to be a point in favor or to the negative to the success of a hardware company. While it will hopefully change in the future, support for non-windows based systems makes only a small difference in desktop targeted hardware.
Would I like for nvidia to release their drivers in an open source format? Absolutely. Do I think we have the right to demand it? Absolutely not. A great deal of time and effort has gone into the drivers and hardware designs for Nvidia and ATI. It is up to them what they do with it. It is up to us to decide if we are willing to accept it by buying the products.
Mark Shuttleworth has come to the reluctant conclusion that the user experience can be made better by including the capability of configuring the vendor supplied drivers by default. i see nothing wrong with this provided that it is optional and the user is given a credible explanation as to advantages and disadvantages.
It is about consumer choice. The consumer can choose to use the open source drivers, or they can use the vendor provided ones. As long as they make an educated decision I see no problem with either decision.
Edited 2006-11-25 18:18
As others have already said in this thread, the use or non-use of proprietary binary modules is NOT just a question of consumer choice. It’s also about the choice of license made by developers. Many developers choose the GPL specifically because they believe it does not allow this type of use.
They believe that such use degrades overall freedom.
Even though some people (talking about you NotParker ;o) ) believe that this in itself is a horrible restriction on freedom, that’s a debate for another day.
Your own logic above which grants ATI and Nvidia every right to protect their work and not release GPL compatible modules, should be extended to the authors of GPL software who wish to protect their work in their own way.
People who continually contravene the will of those GPL developers are no better than pirates who steal Microsoft software.
“People who continually contravene the will of those GPL developers are no better than pirates who steal Microsoft software.”
Exactly. All we are asking for is : respect the license. You don’t like it ? don’t use it. We don’t care about software pirats and warez adepts.
I’m sure the kind of people trying to desperatly find a loophole in the GPL are the same kind of people that would really enjoy to use Microsoft Office 2012 UltraProfessional Edition Warez Gold Silver.
Except the GPL developers work is not being stolen, damaged, or lessened. The GPLed work is still protected in every way as delineated by the GPL v2 license. The nv driver has not been broken due to the offer, nor has the kernel been made inoperable.
Nvidia and ATI believe that the method by which they are making drivers available is within the scope of the GPL and I and many others happen to agree. They are not “contravening” the GPL license they are trying to legally interoperate with it.
Saying that NVidia releasing free as in beer drivers for Linux but not releasing the source is no better than someone knowingly stealing commercial software is highly dubious.
You are free not to use the drivers but to say that offering drivers is the equivalent to illegal distribution of commercial software? I have no basis for common ground with you and leave you to your opinion. Good day.
EDIT: For the record, I do not use the blob drivers. I made a conscious decision that I did not want to rely on an unknown piece of code running at the kernel level in my systems. Since I do not game nor do I do grahics work the Intel chipsets are sufficient for my 3d needs. Where I have Nvidia or ATI chipsets I make due with the open source drivers. This was my decision to make, not yours. If the kernel developers wish to object and refuse to allow the binary drivers it is within their right to take them to court. FSF would be quite capable of handling the case I think. Since ther has not been a legal objection to the providing of the drivers this can be taken as a tacit, if unliked, allowance for distribution.
Edited 2006-11-25 19:17
“Except the GPL developers work is not being stolen, damaged, or lessened. The GPLed work is still protected in every way as delineated by the GPL v2 license. The nv driver has not been broken due to the offer, nor has the kernel been made inoperable.”
That’s just your opinion, and not that of all legal minds or even of all developers that choose this license. I’m sure many pirates who steal MS software have many such rationalizations about their deeds too… MS doesn’t need the money.. MS is evil anyway.. etc etc..
“Nvidia and ATI believe that the method by which they are making drivers available is within the scope of the GPL and I and many others happen to agree. They are not “contravening” the GPL license they are trying to legally interoperate with it. ”
Well they seem to have found a way to work around the GPL, but by many accounts not in the spirit of it. But the question becomes much more murky when someone tries to distribute the combined work; Nvidia and ATI have avoided this issue by not distributing the combined work themselves.
“Saying that NVidia releasing free as in beer drivers for Linux but not releasing the source is no better than someone knowingly stealing commercial software is highly dubious.”
To the extent that they are profiting (selling more cards etc) on the backs of developers who do not want them using THEIR software they are every bit as bad as the pirates who profit by using MS software against the license of its owner..
“You are free not to use the drivers but to say that offering drivers is the equivalent to illegal distribution of commercial software? I have no basis for common ground with you and leave you to your opinion.”
You miss the very point of my post. Everyone is free to do as they wish, but there are legal and moral guidelines one should follow in making appropriate choices.
Cheers.
“To the extent that they are profiting (selling more cards etc) on the backs of developers who do not want them using THEIR software they are every bit as bad as the pirates who profit by using MS software against the license of its owner.. ”
Then let the developers who feel they are being encroached upon take them to court and make them stop. Assuming you have contributed to the kernel you could do it. Your opinion is that the drivers are profiting nvidia. My opinion is that Linux is profiting from the availability of high performance 3d in the form of more users far more than nvidia is profiting from the added sales of users who buy their cards for Linux support. It is a matter of perspective.
Cheers
“Then let the developers who feel they are being encroached upon take them to court and make them stop. Assuming you have contributed to the kernel you could do it. Your opinion is that the drivers are profiting nvidia. My opinion is that Linux is profiting from the availability of high performance 3d in the form of more users far more than nvidia is profiting from the added sales of users who buy their cards for Linux support. It is a matter of perspective.”
Just like Microsoft has to take people to court who violate their license.
It’s just unfortunate that so many people refuse to respect proprietary and GPL licenses without the threat of the legal system. It would be nice if there weren’t so many pirates stealing MS software, and it would be just as nice if there weren’t so many people who don’t respect the GPL demanding to use GPL software.
“You miss the very point of my post. Everyone is free to do as they wish, but there are legal and moral guidelines one should follow in making appropriate choices. ”
There are many who disagree with the fact that the drivers are illegal or immoral. I find the sharing of copyrighted music and movies immoral and illegal. Others do not share this opinion, thus the popularity of P2P and bittorrent. Those who consciously are aware that the sharing of movies and music is against the wishes of the creator and is illegal to do but do so anyway, through whatever excuse, are on morally shaky ground.
A company who makes drivers available but does not make them a requirement for purchase is trying to maximize profit, but are not acting in an underhanded or immoral way IMHO.
Edited 2006-11-25 19:33
Imagine a world where everybody needs proprietary drivers to run GNU/Linux. That would be terrible and make it extremely difficult to innovate. When security problems appear, it’s up to the vendor of the hardware to decide if GNU/Linux will be secure or an easily exploitable platform.
You can read more about “Linux in a binary world” here: http://lwn.net/Articles/162686
It’s important to realize that having proprietary drivers available and making them a default part of an otherwise Free system are two completely different things. Is it important that things just work? Absolutely, which is why we should pressure companies to release their hardware specs. It’s not a catastrophe if drivers have to be downloaded from the internet, which is how a lot of drivers are installed on the most popular OS anyway.
Canonical could use some of their money to fund projects like noveau. AMD will release some specs for their video cards, and the noveau project might produce usable drivers in a year or so for nVidia cards. An experimental version might even be shipped with Fedora 7.
There’s also a problem when a distribution that aims to be a part of the free software community endorses proprietary drivers, because it sends the wrong message. For example, read “The community, stupid” http://www.kroah.com/log/2006/11/24#community. It’s less of a problem when a company that mostly ignores the community (for example, Xandros) does it.
1. It’s bad because it can be taken away. Let’s take nVidia or ATI. If both companies would suddenly stop their Linux support, it’d be quite a disaster for Linux. Sure, you could still use nv and vesa, but you wouldn’t be able to really have a 3D desktop.
2. Same goes for applications: If Adobe suddenly stopped Photoshop for the Mac – there’s nothing, absolutely nothing the Mac users could do (uhm, except switching to their beloved Vista). This cannot hapen to the Gimp. Even if the people responsible today would die or loose interest in their application, there’d soon be others to take over.
3. The GPL argument is a fact. A license is a license . The reasons against binary blobs are not just put forward by Linux – there are others, e.g. the NetBSD community – who vote clearly against using binary blobs. No control, unable to patch anything. Bad, bad, bad.
4. Linux should be as easy as possible (well, Ubuntu, SUSE and Linspire – don’t touch Slackware or Debian
) – but not for the price of binary blobs.
No, NetBSD actually supports Project Evil, it’s OpenBSD that’s the anti-blob people.
Given the way this discussion has progressed, it’s pretty obvious that most people posting here haven’t done their homework, including Shuttleworth.
First off, Shuttleworth’s wording, his offer, and his presentation, reminds me of a used-car salesman. At the moment, there’s a lot of hysteria, but very little proof that Novell is attempting to circumvent the patent clause in the GPL. I wish they’d be more clear about it, but so far, I haven’t heard the GPL specifically referenced, and Novell has software available under closed, open, and GPL licenses (My personal belief is that Novell should specifically *exclude* any GPL licensed software from the Novell/MS agreement).
Secondly, I can’t speak about ATI, but the last time this came up (Kororaa), I went investigating into the binary/GPL/derived issue as it relates to the NVidia drivers under linux:
When you compile ‘nvidia.ko’ using the nvidia installer, and do a ‘strings’ on the resulting file, it’s pretty apparent that the NVidia driver (‘nvidia.ko’) consists of an open-source (GPL?) wrapper, written specifically for the Linux kernel (Hence, making it a derived work), which then *statically* links to the NVidia binary blob.
Note that I said statically. Not dynamically. If it linked dynamically, then it would be loading the binary blob during runtime, but statically linked, the entire binary blob is contained within ‘nvidia.ko’.
I can do this perfectly legally under the GPL, because what I do on my computer isn’t your business, it’s mine.
What I can’t do, is distribute that particular file ‘nvidia.ko’ under the terms of the GPL, because it constitutes a derived work of the Linux kernel, which is a GPL-licensed work (And therein lies my personal belief why the kernel API will never be stable, but that’s another rant).
Now, of course, the issue gets even murkier; If I turn on dynamic linking, and leave the binary blob in it’s own little .so library file, then what? Is the library file considered a derivative work of the kernel? I think actually, the nvidia.ko module would then be a derivative work of the kernel, and of the NVidia binary blob, but the blob would *not* be derivative of the linux kernel (being written independently) and would therefore skirt the GPL distribution limitation. But I’m not a lawyer, and would not care to debate the meaning of “derivative work” in front of a judge.
There’s the answer of lead dev of OpenSUSE to Mark: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03788.html
Edited 2006-11-25 22:21
That commute to South Africa is a killer.
With non-free (proprietary) software I have to:
* trust that it won’t harm any part of my existing system or data
It is a fact that any non-trivial piece of software is very likely to have bugs. We need the freedom to study the software to verify that it will work as intended. If it doesn’t work as intended, we need the freedom to improve it and distribute the changes so everyone else can benefit from the improvements.
* trust that it will ONLY what I want it to do
We know that there are software producers around that release very shady software to the public. How do we know that the credit card numbers we type into a piece of software will not be sent over the Internet in plain text? How do we know that the purpose of the software is not to spy on our surfing habits and send the data to a marketer without our permission? How do we know that “enhanced cd” will not open our computer to crackers because it installed a root-kit to “protect intellectual property”? I can only verify that the software will do as intended only if I can study how it works and change it to work as expected.
* trust that it will not conflict with other software
With free software, I can find conflicts and fix problems with all related software so that all software is fine.
* be at the mercy of the software vendor for fixes and improvements
With non-free software, I am at the mercy of the vendor. If they don’t want to support the software anymore, I’m out of luck. If the company dies, I’m out of luck. With free software, I will always be able to get someone to support the software if I cannot or do not want to fix it myself.
I have been hurt numerous times with user-subjugating non-free software. I have had issues relating to all of the above points. The sony root-kit fiasco caused me to finally rid myself of all non-free software. The sony root-kit cd broke all trust I had in non-free software as well as Sony’s name. I just cannot trust non-free software to work as expected and to work as I wish.
I can trust free software because I can verify that it will work as I expect it to work and if not, I do not have to rely on one vendor to get problems fixed.
With free software, I can find conflicts and fix problems with all related software so that all software is fine.
That line is great in theory, but wouldn’t really fly with an over worked admin dealing with 1000 workstations of all different hardware configurations and software requirements.
The ball game changes when you go outside of the scope of a few machines in your basement.
Edited 2006-11-26 15:27
* trust that it won’t harm any part of my existing system or data
No, you don’t. Security through obscurity doesn’t work; therefore, you will KNOW whether your system or data are being harmed.
* trust that it will ONLY what I want it to do
You’ve personally examined all of the Linux source code? Didn’t think so. So, in fact, you really don’t know that it’s doing what you think it’s supposed to be doing. Nor will you *ever* know that, because no one looks at all the source code.
* trust that it will not conflict with other software
Uh, yes, you can: Run the software together. It’s that simple.
* be at the mercy of the software vendor for fixes and improvements
Most of whom provide better service than the alternative. Which is why companies that depend upon service go with dedicated service contracts.
You had to know that this was next, right?
You know, I have noticed that this is happening quite a lot lately. Every time there is a Linux article posted the comments section turns into a huge GPL debate, whether it be GPL vs Non-GPL, Version 2 vs. Version 3, or whatever. Ultimately, all this is, is that Shuttleworth sees an opportunity to gain some developers from a company that may or may not be going through a time of unrest and turmoil. If things at Novell are really as bad a everybody wants to predict, than he is doing them service; However, if things are still great at Novell, then their developers will stay. Nobody is getting hurt from this offer.
I agree, and this whole GPL debate is tired AND offtopic.
On the one hand Shuttleworth is just trying to drum up more support and making an offer. On the other it does sort of slight the hard work the OpenSuse team are doing. Keep in mind he is wooing the OpenSuse team, not the core Suse/Novell team.
I instinctually find it in poor taste. But looking at it from as an act of a man who is passionate about his project letting others know he would welcome the help it seems reasonable. It seems a bit like try to poach talent though, which is not nice no matter the industry.
about GPL!.
I’m a Mac user also, and it’s true that this articles threads should not be used to debate the GPL; However, as a Mac user you SHOULD be concerned about the GPL. A large part of the OS that all Mac users have come to love is Open source software and issues like which OSS license to use are very much important to the improvement and longevity of the OS.
Edited 2006-11-27 19:21