Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
Gargoyle wrote: On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:33, Pat wrote: On 14/12/06, alan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 [...] However, on the other hand if the likes if ATI/nVidia do not release GPL versions of their drivers then linux will fail! Who is going to install an operating system onto their machine if it can't even drive a gfx card to it's full potential? yes it would worry me if the initiative is apparently just left so that whichever company controls (nvidia) etc then they also in reality also control the success of linux. It is more about big business politics than honour or legality, and companies such as M$ can sure box clever. -- ac Kubuntu user#10391 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
Personally, I think Linus is being short-sighted. When we have much, much more power, and companies are actively begging to support Linux, THEN we make the switch. This would push them, through their clamouring, to create open specs at the very least, or better, to release GPL drivers. I do believe that open drivers are incredibly important. When we start encouraging closed drivers, as the provision allows, new companies to support the kernel (with their up-and-coming hardware that everyone has) will not release specs, nor will they release the code (as that would inherently imply releasing the specs). We need to keep our freedom to see the code, and I am willing to limit my and others' freedom to use whatever binaries they wish; be they from open, or closed, source. On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 11:37 +, alan c wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16720/Non-GPL-Linux-Kernel-Modules-Banned-Starting-January-2008/ I am not technically into any of the details, and have never even compiled a kernel etc, or much at all, but - this sounds a bit like extremism which might have a significant effect on real life users who want things to 'just work'. I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! -- alan cocks Kubuntu user#10391 -- Help me get to Venezuela! http://tibsplace.co.uk/venezuela -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 04:14 +, Dean Sas wrote: I do on all my machines, I'd guess that many others who simply don't need the full potential do the same. I use the full potential, and I use free drivers! Intel don't seem to have any problem; why should others? -- Help me get to Venezuela! http://tibsplace.co.uk/venezuela -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16720/Non-GPL-Linux-Kernel-Modules-Banned-Starting-January-2008/ I am not technically into any of the details, and have never even compiled a kernel etc, or much at all, but - this sounds a bit like extremism which might have a significant effect on real life users who want things to 'just work'. I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! -- alan cocks Kubuntu user#10391 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
On 14/12/06, alan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 ... I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! -- I'm in two minds about this issue. For one point, I think that the GPL is the strength of Linux. Without it, we would never be where we are now - and it worries me about how, every year, more and more of my system becomes closed-source. Originally it was just the nvidia/ATI drivers. Then audio video codecs. Sun saw sense and have (or will be) GPLing Java. Then there's ndiswrapper as a means of running binary drivers for wireless networking hardware. Taken to its extreme, I don't want to end up with a closed source OS. I like to tinker, dammit! :-) On the other hand, there's the whole Freedom aspect to consider. There's no way that they can prevent Closed Source elements being included, because we could just remove the patch that enforced GPL only patches. This is a freedom that you don't get with closed source stuff of course! As a real-life user myself, I wouldn't be too upset if they managed to enforce GPL only. I've had a lot of benefit from other people's work that they GPLed in good faith. I would like to continue to do so. When organisations manage to circumvent the spirit of the GPL and include closed source into our system they sell-out everyone who contributed openly. I'm afraid that I side a lot more with RMS than Linus over GPL issues. /end-rant Pat. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:33, Pat wrote: On 14/12/06, alan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 ... I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! -- I'm in two minds about this issue. ... Snip ... Me too, that's quite a tough one but I think I am favouring Linus' (and Ubuntu's) way of looking at it. Some parts of the system are free and open (GPL) because people put in the time and effort to write and maintain those parts. Others are not free because companies have spent millions developing XYZ and they want to earn some cash back! Currently I can install Ubuntu using the default settings, and get only software that comes under GPL. Or, I can enable universe and multiverse and get software that does not quite fit that mould... It's my choice. I can also see there is a potential problem on the legal side of things for companies like SUSE (Novell), since it could possibly leave them short if they ever had to uphold their licence in a legal case. However, on the other hand if the likes if ATI/nVidia do not release GPL versions of their drivers then linux will fail! Who is going to install an operating system onto their machine if it can't even drive a gfx card to it's full potential? Paul (aka. Gargoyle) -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
On 14/12/06, Gargoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:33, Pat wrote: On 14/12/06, alan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 ... I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! -- I'm in two minds about this issue. ... Snip ... Me too, that's quite a tough one but I think I am favouring Linus' (and Ubuntu's) way of looking at it. Some parts of the system are free and open (GPL) because people put in the time and effort to write and maintain those parts. Others are not free because companies have spent millions developing XYZ and they want to earn some cash back! Currently I can install Ubuntu using the default settings, and get only software that comes under GPL. Or, I can enable universe and multiverse and get software that does not quite fit that mould... It's my choice. Absolutely - I agree 100%. I wish I was principled enough to not enable the non-free repos, but I like my A/V stuff... I like the approach that we can choose whether or not to allow the non-free onto our systems with just a couple of clicks. This is why I replaced my Mandrake systems with Ubuntu when Warty was released. I'm just glad that there are enough Free Software zealots around to make a fuss about the lapses into closed-source mediocrity. What we have to remember, as far as I can see it, is that, without the many eyes approach, without the amateur coders who take one project and improve it, and pass it on to the next guy to improve it to fit his requirements, we lose what made GNU Linux such a powerful force. That is what the proprietary software corporations cannot compete with. I can also see there is a potential problem on the legal side of things for companies like SUSE (Novell), since it could possibly leave them short if they ever had to uphold their licence in a legal case. However, on the other hand if the likes if ATI/nVidia do not release GPL versions of their drivers then linux will fail! I am still waiting for a particularly irritating bug in the nvidia drivershttp://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354767#c4to be fixed. It doesn't affect many people, relatively, so I doubt it ever will. I bet it would have been fixed already, if it had been an Xorg driver - might even have had a go myself. My point is that binary modules are a compromise that most of us, including me, are prepared to make. If GNU/Linux becomes dependent on closed source, then it *will* have failed - and it won't become that way over night, it will be by a process of incremental losses. Who is going to install an operating system onto their machine if it can't even drive a gfx card to it's full potential? The number of users/customers isn't the measure of excellence.:-) GNU/Linux doesn't exist to support nvidia/ATI etc. it is supposed to be the other way around! The hardware manufacturers make money from sales of hardware to Free Software users, but Free Software developers don't make money from supporting nvidia/ATI etc. Accepting the closed-source drivers into Linux removes the pressure on the hardware companies to provide Free software. all the best, Pat. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 (??)
Gargoyle wrote: On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:33, Pat wrote: On 14/12/06, alan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 ... I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in ubuntu! Ben Collins (Ubuntu kernel maintainer) posted in that thread saying he would resist the change too. Also the guy who wrote the patch backed down, I think we're safe for now. Me too, that's quite a tough one but I think I am favouring Linus' (and Ubuntu's) way of looking at it. Some parts of the system are free and open (GPL) because people put in the time and effort to write and maintain those parts. Others are not free because companies have spent millions developing XYZ and they want to earn some cash back! Redhat have spent millions developing XYZ, as have IBM and Sun and probably others. They still release free and open code... Currently I can install Ubuntu using the default settings, and get only software that comes under GPL. Or, I can enable universe and multiverse and get software that does not quite fit that mould... It's my choice. Universe only contains Free Software. Restricted and Multiverse are the non-free repos. Who is going to install an operating system onto their machine if it can't even drive a gfx card to it's full potential? I do on all my machines, I'd guess that many others who simply don't need the full potential do the same. Dean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
