Re: Three kinds of packages
Once upon a time, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com said: Save it for some politics group, anyone who doesn't think scanning phone conversations and email without warrant and torture are okay should go to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. This is not the place. You are the one that brought the political crap up here (and you can stick Rush Limbaugh where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned). This has been discussed on the LKML, please read there. The last opinion I saw of any authority said that using header files did not make it a derived work. Please discuss that elsewhere. Again, you brought it up here. There's more than header files involved in some of these things. People treat use of header files or linking as the line between derived and not derived, but it isn't as clear cut as that (ask a lawyer). -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 17:26:28 -0400, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com wrote: I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. Free for noncommercial use is also another important category. These aren't free enough for Fedora, but there are a number of these type in the rpmfusion nonfree repository. Another good point. Just because some code isn't suitable for inclusion in Fedora doesn't mean that you are breaking some law by installing it. In some cases the code might actually be illegal, in others it means the license isn't worded right and it's a religious matter. -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Three kinds of packages
I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and legal to use and redistribute. So let's not talk about rpmfusion and *forge software as illegal, much of it is not, even in the USA. -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
Once upon a time, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com said: I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and legal to use and redistribute. So let's not talk about rpmfusion and *forge software as illegal, much of it is not, even in the USA. Aside from calling the US fascist (which is a little over the top, especially since the US isn't the only country that has allowed and/or enforced the stupid patents), you're wrong on another point. A number of the closed source kernel modules are of questionable legality (and not just in the US), because they may be derived works of the Linux kernel. A derived work of the kernel must be GPLv2, which can't be closed source. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
On 26/07/09 23:38, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com said: I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and legal to use and redistribute. So let's not talk about rpmfusion and *forge software as illegal, much of it is not, even in the USA. Aside from calling the US fascist (which is a little over the top, especially since the US isn't the only country that has allowed and/or enforced the stupid patents), you're wrong on another point. A number of the closed source kernel modules are of questionable legality (and not just in the US), because they may be derived works of the Linux kernel. A derived work of the kernel must be GPLv2, which can't be closed source. Why aren't they then being prosecuted? Too costly? -- Erik. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com said: I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and legal to use and redistribute. So let's not talk about rpmfusion and *forge software as illegal, much of it is not, even in the USA. Aside from calling the US fascist (which is a little over the top, Save it for some politics group, anyone who doesn't think scanning phone conversations and email without warrant and torture are okay should go to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. This is not the place. especially since the US isn't the only country that has allowed and/or enforced the stupid patents), you're wrong on another point. A number of the closed source kernel modules are of questionable legality (and not just in the US), because they may be derived works of the Linux kernel. A derived work of the kernel must be GPLv2, which can't be closed source. This has been discussed on the LKML, please read there. The last opinion I saw of any authority said that using header files did not make it a derived work. Please discuss that elsewhere. The point I was making is that fglrx and libdvcss are not remotely the same, software can be closed source and legal, or open source and illegal (in some places). Your obfuscation does not negate my premise. -- Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
of the closed source kernel modules are of questionable legality (and not just in the US), because they may be derived works of the Linux kernel. A derived work of the kernel must be GPLv2, which can't be closed source. Why aren't they then being prosecuted? Too costly? Various companies have been sued in Germany (where the law is actually based more on evidence than wallet size). The case of binary kernel modules is however very complicated and you also have to ask the question would it help to Plus quite frankly there are enough people ripping off the Linux kernel and other free software projects blatantly right now to put complex questions about modules low down the list of easy to win cases. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and legal to use and redistribute. That depends if they are derivative works of a GPL work such as the kernel. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Three kinds of packages
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 17:26:28 -0400, Bill Davidsen david...@tmr.com wrote: I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in the free world, restricted in fascist countries. Free for noncommercial use is also another important category. These aren't free enough for Fedora, but there are a number of these type in the rpmfusion nonfree repository. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
