Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Thomas Hertweck wrote: > > Stop sending private copies of emails going to this list - there is > absolutely no reason why I (or others) should be interested in receiving > all emails twice! On other lists dropping people from CC is seen as unfriendly. Thanks for your understanding. > Now back to the actual topic: > [...] > You're actively supporting this "social pressure" issue because it suits > your opinion. Yes. And I'm proud of it. Seriously, social pressure is more likely to nudge people into compliance than any court order. The legal system works slowly and people have specialized in circumventing it. Social pressure is very difficult to circumvent. > As long as there > is no proof that those drivers violate the GPL, I assume that those > drivers are indeed in compliance with the law. Again, this is how cases > are usually handled in jurisdiction as long as they are open or in > doubt. I won't dispute that proof is essential for any claim. However, I think that it has already been proven for quite a few closed source drivers that they include substantial portions of GPLed code. > If Andreas is indeed right and Debian is violating the GPL > license "but nobody will do anything about it because it is the free > community-based Linux distro" (quoting Andreas' email), then this is the > strongest argument that those kernel developers (and others) threatening > to sue companies don't primarily care about right or wrong (the legal > truth) but are interested in politics - in other words, they are only > interested in forcing companies to write open source drivers, by any > means. I fail to see the logic in your statements above. Even if somebody values legal truth higher than any political goal, he/she might still decide not to (immediately) enforce compliance with it in specific cases for various reasons: * lack of time * lack of money * more prominent cases to go after * fear of counterattacks (physical threats and litigation threats) If you feel that the reasons above are not valid for somebody seeking legal truth as primary goal, the logical conclusion would be that only persons with infinite resources and unlimited protection against any threat can elect legal truth as their number one goal. I doubt such persons exist. > Otherwise they would have to threaten and possibly sue the Debian > project as well. Here social pressure works the other way round. If anybody even suggests that Debian could be unfree, he is in for a very tough ride. However, somebody has to bite that bullet. Could as well be me. Regards, Carl-Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > [...] > You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claims > by kernel developers. The money you'll maybe lose will be your own. > I bet there will be many people who want to offload the risk on you. > > Please be warned that as soon as you offer such an insurance, certain > jurisdictions require copyright holders to sue those who infringe on > their copyrights to keep the copyrights enforceable. So that insurance > idea will probably die after the first court case. But again, you are > very welcome to try. Chaps, I say this only once, so please listen carefully: this is a mailing list which means discussions usually take place on the list. Stop sending private copies of emails going to this list - there is absolutely no reason why I (or others) should be interested in receiving all emails twice! Use the list-reply functionality of your MUA or change the To/Cc headers manually if necessary. If you are not able or not willing to do that then maybe you should not participate any discussion on mailing lists and/or you should certainly not reply to my emails. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Now back to the actual topic: I am not interested in your strange story about insurances or any other story - actually, I am not even sure what you tried to tell us. I am mainly interested in the legal truth whether closed-source third-party drivers are violating the GPL license. Here, I don't have to show or prove anything - in any proper jurisdiction, the accuser has to provide the evidence and has to prove that others brake the law. A court will pick up those arguments and interpret the law and decide whether the accuser is right or wrong. So it's up to those kernel developers to provide the evidence that closed-source drivers are violating the GPL. They have a point, no doubt about that, but they haven't really provided the evidence and they haven't sued any company so far although there are companies out there that create and distribute closed-source kernel modules (see also the Debian argument later on). Instead, they seem to create what Siegbert called "social pressure". This is far more efficient for them as there is no risk of losing money at the court, or even the whole lawsuit (which might be unlikely but you never know). You're actively supporting this "social pressure" issue because it suits your opinion. Although I am also preferring open-source drivers (and you should really note this statement because we're actually sitting in the same boat), I am not willing to get them at all costs and I am not assuming that the kernel developers are right per se. As long as there is no proof that those drivers violate the GPL, I assume that those drivers are indeed in compliance with the law. Again, this is how cases are usually handled in jurisdiction as long as they are open or in doubt. If Andreas is indeed right and Debian is violating the GPL license "but nobody will do anything about it because it is the free community-based Linux distro" (quoting Andreas' email), then this is the strongest argument that those kernel developers (and others) threatening to sue companies don't primarily care about right or wrong (the legal truth) but are interested in politics - in other words, they are only interested in forcing companies to write open source drivers, by any means. Otherwise they would have to threaten and possibly sue the Debian project as well. You and many others have decided to support the kernel developers. Well, that's up to you but you should certainly accept - and this is what I am asking for - that other people might have other opinions about it. I am not taking anything for granted, I am asking for clarification - this might be considered as an unpopular position but I think sometimes it's necessary to swim against the current. As a software developer, I would certainly not call my code "derived from XYZ" just because of an XYZ header file that I include in my code. Maybe the kernel itself is somehow special and anything that includes kernel headers should be considered as "derived from". But this is exactly the question that needs to be answered. And neither of us is really able to do that. So we can continue this discussion forever, or we can just accept that there are different opinions and different points of view at the moment. I think at the end of the day we all want the same thing - good open-source drivers. It's just a question of how to get them, and here I consider my position as far more moderate than your position. We will see how this story continues. Greetings from London, Th. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger schrieb: > Pay a lawyer to check if your opinion matches copyright law. A court > won't care about your opinion, only about the law. But the same is true for the opinion of some kernel developers, isn't it? > You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claims > by kernel developers. The money you'll maybe lose will be your own. > I bet there will be many people who want to offload the risk on you. And you carry the financial risk of the kernel devs sueing Novell and RedHat, if they would continue to distribute ATI/Nvidia proprietary modules? Your argument is exactly what I called social pressure some mails ago. Actually it's even better as you try it with financial pressure. How could I dare to join the discussion, if I'm not able to pay the financial risk? Bad me. Ciao Siegbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: > So the obvious questions is why debian can have the nvidia drivers, but > suse can't, where is the different ... Because Debian is everybody's darling, especially when it comes to GPL and general freedom issues, and nobody will ever criticize it. > or Debian is actually braking the GPL ( fsf know about this ? ) Yes, it is, and of course everybody knows this, but nobody will do anything about it because it is "the" "free" community-based Linux distro. > Any way, see the smartlink in suse "extra" > http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/ Let's avoid confusion and make it clear: This package does not contain any Non-GPL kernel modules. Andreas Hanke - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/16, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> Is clear that GPL is protected by law in Germany and USA, is clear too (> for me at least ) that you can't mix or link non-free software with GPL> code ( with lgpl you can ). >> What i think is not clear is the server=distribution, for example when> kororaa receive a letter from fsf, they ask to kororaa specifically remove> the nvidia and ati driver _from the live cd_, wich they do. BUT they never > have ask to remove nvidia / ati drivers from gentoo servers ( kororaa> depository ), not a single letter, just nothing.Seems to be an oversight.> Debian project have a big non-free section in the server, i have never > see a letter from fsf asking to remove it because they are> braking the GPL.As long as the non-free software doesn't include GPL code, there is noproblem.So the obvious questions is why debian can have the nvidia drivers, but suse can't, where is the different ... or Debian is actually braking the GPL ( fsf know about this ? ) > Almost every big distro ( including suse ) have some non-free kernel> modules in the server, i have never see fsf asking to remove > those files.Since SUSE Linux 10.1 this problem is fixed. I couldn't find any non-freekernel modules for SUSE Linux 10.1 or later on any of the SUSE servers.If you can find such modules, this would be a bug. Is there a difference is you have non-free kernel modules for olders release ?? isn't the presence of the module it self in the server the problem ?Any way, see the smartlink in suse "extra" http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/ > Ok, they have time/money to make a sue, but they have not the time to write> a letter ??>> you can read the kororaa issue here:> http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059I know about that opinion piece. Rest assured that it is not possibleto compile a Linux kernel module without including headers (and code)from the Linux kernel sources. That alone means that you cannot distribute binary only kernel modules. However, if you do so ANDif you can prove that some of your code are not a derived work ofthe Linux kernel, a court may decide you don't have to opensourceall of your code. However, that won't help you much if you're not allowed to distribute the modules.Sure, i just put the link like a reference to what i said before. What i said is the kororaa problem was with the "live cd", but they never remove the nvidia/ati drivers from the server and no body ask for either. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > Is clear that GPL is protected by law in Germany and USA, is clear too ( > for me at least ) that you can't mix or link non-free software with GPL > code ( with lgpl you can ). > > What i think is not clear is the server=distribution, for example when > kororaa receive a letter from fsf, they ask to kororaa specifically remove > the nvidia and ati driver _from the live cd_, wich they do. BUT they never > have ask to remove nvidia / ati drivers from gentoo servers ( kororaa > depository ), not a single letter, just nothing. Seems to be an oversight. > Debian project have a big non-free section in the server, i have never > see a letter from fsf asking to remove it because they are > braking the GPL. As long as the non-free software doesn't include GPL code, there is no problem. > Almost every big distro ( including suse ) have some non-free kernel > modules in the server, i have never see fsf asking to remove > those files. Since SUSE Linux 10.1 this problem is fixed. I couldn't find any non-free kernel modules for SUSE Linux 10.1 or later on any of the SUSE servers. If you can find such modules, this would be a bug. > Ok, they have time/money to make a sue, but they have not the time to write > a letter ?? > > you can read the kororaa issue here: > http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059 I know about that opinion piece. Rest assured that it is not possible to compile a Linux kernel module without including headers (and code) from the Linux kernel sources. That alone means that you cannot distribute binary only kernel modules. However, if you do so AND if you can prove that some of your code are not a derived work of the Linux kernel, a court may decide you don't have to opensource all of your code. However, that won't help you much if you're not allowed to distribute the modules. Regards, Carl-Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/16, Marcel Mourguiart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2006/9/16, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >: Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> _Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have> non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_Yes. Alan Cox (one of the main kernel developers) has written such a letter. A few other kernel developers have done the same. ChristophHellwig (he also holds copyright on quite a few critical parts ofthe kernel) has stated: "I'm going to sue them if they use hookcalled from code I have copyright on." Funny and why they have non-free kernel modules in the kernel server ??Have you a link to the letter ??You know what, never mind Is clear that GPL is protected by law in Germany and USA, is clear too ( for me at least ) that you can't mix or link non-free software with GPL code ( with lgpl you can ).What i think is not clear is the server=distribution, for example when kororaa receive a letter from fsf, they ask to kororaa specifically remove the nvidia and ati driver _from the live cd_, wich they do. BUT they never have ask to remove nvidia / ati drivers from gentoo servers ( kororaa depository ), not a single letter, just nothing. Debian project have a big non-free section in the server, i have never see a letter from fsf asking to remove it because they are braking the GPL.Almost every big distro ( including suse ) have some non-free kernel modules in the server, i have never see fsf asking to remove those files. Ok, they have time/money to make a sue, but they have not the time to write a letter ??you can read the kororaa issue here:http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059 -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/16, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> _Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have> non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_Yes. Alan Cox (one of the main kernel developers) has written such a letter. A few other kernel developers have done the same. ChristophHellwig (he also holds copyright on quite a few critical parts ofthe kernel) has stated: "I'm going to sue them if they use hookcalled from code I have copyright on." Funny and why they have non-free kernel modules in the kernel server ??Have you a link to the letter ??-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > _Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have > non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_ Yes. Alan Cox (one of the main kernel developers) has written such a letter. A few other kernel developers have done the same. Christoph Hellwig (he also holds copyright on quite a few critical parts of the kernel) has stated: "I'm going to sue them if they use hook called from code I have copyright on." > Normally people send a letter before take you in court. Since these letters exist and have been published widely, the only hope for developers of non-free kernel modules is that Alan Cox and others don't have enough time/money to sue them. Regards, Carl-Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/15, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Thomas Hertweck wrote:> Siegbert Baude wrote:>> [...]>> As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not,>> nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be >> thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also>> distributing cannot be forbidden.>> [...][...quite a lot of text snipped...]>> I am in complete agreement with this statement! Pay a lawyer to check if your opinion matches copyright law. A courtwon't care about your opinion, only about the law.You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claimsby kernel developers. If GPL by law said you can't have non-free drivers, why there was a kernel developer discussion about that issue, i mean they could just ask a lawyer. _Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_ Normally people send a letter before take you in court.-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Thomas Hertweck wrote: > Siegbert Baude wrote: >> [...] >> As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not, >> nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be >> thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also >> distributing cannot be forbidden. >> [...] [...quite a lot of text snipped...] > > I am in complete agreement with this statement! Pay a lawyer to check if your opinion matches copyright law. A court won't care about your opinion, only about the law. You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claims by kernel developers. The money you'll maybe lose will be your own. I bet there will be many people who want to offload the risk on you. Please be warned that as soon as you offer such an insurance, certain jurisdictions require copyright holders to sue those who infringe on their copyrights to keep the copyrights enforceable. So that insurance idea will probably die after the first court case. But again, you are very welcome to try. Regards, Carl-Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 15, 06 00:33:33 +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote: > >Non-derived in a sensible manner means that the biggest part of the > >work was done without using anything of GPLed code, which for me is > >clearly the case for graphics card drivers. > > You can't really tell without actually seeing the code! You probably can from reading the SHIM layer. You can by pointing out bugs that occure in both the Windows and the Linux drivers. Though they get rare nowadays. > And as long as there are possibly viable legal claims that can't be > ignored easily, a US company like Novell will try to avoid the whole > matter as much as possible. Right. The stress is on the 'possibly'. Novell has to make sure it is on the save side. In that case it means playing by the rules the majority of the kernel developers would like to see in effect. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:54:08AM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:12:54 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: > > >Most commercial applications use the shared library version of the glibc (and > >many other libraries) and thus don't have to ship anything. You are only > >violating the license if you don't ship the object code _and_ use static > >linking. > > Oh, have I missed something? Seems I have to reread the LGPL. It says: [...] Also, you must do one of these things: a) Accompany the work with [...]; and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.) b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with. [...] Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgp5GWtvNFb5y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:12:54 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: >Most commercial applications use the shared library version of the glibc (and >many other libraries) and thus don't have to ship anything. You are only >violating the license if you don't ship the object code _and_ use static >linking. Oh, have I missed something? Seems I have to reread the LGPL. Philipp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 12:33:33AM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote: > against it would have to be open sourced. But vendors don't even > follow the LGPL, or have you seen any vendor of a closed source > program/library offer the object files for relinking with a newer > version of glibc? Most commercial applications use the shared library version of the glibc (and many other libraries) and thus don't have to ship anything. You are only violating the license if you don't ship the object code _and_ use static linking. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpYBIeD89YJQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:57 +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote: >The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real >interpretation of "derived work". It doesn't have to be modified, simple use of GPLed code is enough. If the glibc where under GPL instead of LGPL, *every* program linked against it would have to be open sourced. But vendors don't even follow the LGPL, or have you seen any vendor of a closed source program/library offer the object files for relinking with a newer version of glibc? >Non-derived in a sensible manner means that the biggest part of the >work was done without using anything of GPLed code, which for me is >clearly the case for graphics card drivers. You can't really tell without actually seeing the code! >Dispute my arguments from above please, but not with technical wishes >based on support reasons or somebody's expressed opinions besides >the license iteself, but from a legal point of view, because that is all >Novell should care about. Neither of us is a lawyer, ain't it so? So who of us can tell what is and what isn't a violation of the license. There are IP lawyers that say that the use of kernel interfaces indeed constituates a derived work, at least under US law. And as long as there are possibly viable legal claims that can't be ignored easily, a US company like Novell will try to avoid the whole matter as much as possible. Philipp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 13, 06 18:53:32 +0200, T. Lodewick wrote: > but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer > against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that > has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german > court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the > GPL and the german law. > if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again. I vaguely remember that, and it was a completely different case. AFAIR what the router vendors did (there were several) was a pretty rock solid breach of the GPL. This is not perfectly clear in the binary driver situation. They do not ship GPL code without revealing the source. > I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) > isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a > (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views: (should read before answering ;) > - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law > - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court Nobody ever neglegted that. > I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and > I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a > solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and > make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros > to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch > drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the > rights they have. Ok, peace :) And world domination =) > > I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and > > might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap > > propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not > > help to solve the problem at all! > > thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have > there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and > with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" > against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't > solve the problem at all too. I agree here. The kernel developers have a valid point, and calling that propaganda doesn't help anyone. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Siegbert Baude wrote: > Let me first say, that I perfectly understand the wish for open specs > for open drivers. > [...] > So what was never judged in front of a court was the "derived work" part > of the GPL. The interpretation of some kernel folks (again there are > also contradicting opinions over there) is (in nice words) very > "embracing". > [...] > As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not, > nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be > thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also > distributing cannot be forbidden. > [...] > My personal opinion is, there is just an abuse of the GPL in order to > force hardware vendors to open specs by social pressure. The GPL never > wanted to forbid any use of software together with GPLed code or you > could never use any other non-GPL programs on top of your GPL-kernel. > The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real > interpretation of "derived work". And therefore, if there is some > non-derived work it should be o.k. to use it together with GPLed code > independent of using syscalls vs. header files. Non-derived in a > sensible manner means that the biggest part of the work was done without > using anything of GPLed code, which for me is clearly the case for > graphics card drivers. > [...] I am in complete agreement with this statement! Cheers, Th. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Andreas Jaeger schrieb: > Siegbert, > > there are some kernel developers that do considers binary only drivers > a violation of the GPL. Just googling around found me the following: > http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752 I know this very well, also the doomsday scenario. And I also know that in this world most people just follow the one shouting loudest. Seems the hardliners at kernel.org shout the loudest at the moment. > We at Novell have decided to respect the view of the kernel developers > as owner of it. > > It might be that you're right and there's no violation - or perhaps > none for a specific module but some for other modules, or you're > wrong. But this is something for lawyers to discuss and I cannot > comment further on the legal side of this, This is perfectly up to you, just don't call this proven facts, that's all I'm saying. It is just the view of some developers. Was there ever a democratic poll with all kernel contributors about their opinion? And IMHO as long as there are no proven facts for license violations, Novell should care for their users more than for individual opinions. But I'm already satisfied, if you call the beast with the correct name, i.e. "We don't want it because of support reasons both inside the kernel team and for Novell as a company". Just don't abuse the GPL, it does not earn this. Ciao Siegbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Siegbert, there are some kernel developers that do considers binary only drivers a violation of the GPL. Just googling around found me the following: http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752 We at Novell have decided to respect the view of the kernel developers as owner of it. It might be that you're right and there's no violation - or perhaps none for a specific module but some for other modules, or you're wrong. But this is something for lawyers to discuss and I cannot comment further on the legal side of this, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgp3iYNYvkp5Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
T. Lodewick schrieb: > Siegbert Baude schrieb: >> Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the >> manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their >> modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere >> are there 3rd party binaries involved. > as I have written already here in the thread, I don't have the (printed) > papers anymore: it was an article in the paper "c't" from "heise" in the > year 2004. I don't have an archiv of the old ones, so I can't tell you > the exact number. I will check at home, I have the c't archives on CD (nice service, just spend the few extra Euros for your abonnement). But I'm quite sure, what the content of the German judgments were, i.e. the need to publish modified code, which is just not our problem here. >>> so if they do, there should no >>> legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your >>> view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and >>> closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts >>> it is.) >> So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL >> world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment? > as this is the base for holding copyrights and acting against offence > against it you don't realy say that I need to post a link to somewhere, > don't you ? The base for getting rid of unwanted software on somebody else's server is a copyright violation. This violation has to be judged by a court. So as long as there is no judgment, there is no violation, there is no urged removing of software. You however claimed that it is a _court's_ view that distributing proprietary modules is illegal. Without citing a court's judgment this ist just untrue. Please stop this in the future. >>> not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. >>> think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist >>> about that topic. while some developers accept that there are >>> closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. >> So you say yourself that the situation is not clear. > the situation is mutch clear then some people like. but in fact not all > holder of copyrights act gainst offence. So please make the situation clear for me, too, and dispute my arguments from Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Until then, may we agree to disagree? >>> "same server = distro": >>> the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access >>> to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a >>> product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence >>> LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of >>> licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. >> Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. > again, this is the base for holding copyright. if you offer access to a > program I've written ( so I have the copytights and I choose the licence > of the program ) and you also offer access to another program that used > something from my program but hits my licence I have two choises: > > 1. asking you to stop the access to that other program > 2. don't give you permisson to distribute my owen software anymore. > > thats real basic, and you can read about that evey time on any > IT-relaited news-site. The first point is "product B that can only run on top of product A", which is not the case for Nvidia drivers (see http://fbsd-nvdriver.sourceforge.net/), the second is "violating the license", which is just a claim by some kernel folks, but not based on court facts. Until now there is nothing which makes this "basic copyright facts" apply to removing drivers from servers. Maybe you should broaden your sources of information to some non-geek-IT-related news sites, to get rid of hardliners dominating the discussion. >> And just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux >> kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD >> kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong. > ok. you think also that even if you can do that you also have permission > to do that ? or do I missunderstand you here ? Exactly, because then this is a clear indication that the driver is no "derived work". > I have to say I don't know BSD-licence axactly - but in a lot of > discussions in forums ( mainly at the ones at www.heise.de ) about GPL > versus BSD I've read that a source code released under GPL can't be also > compatible to BSD as BSD gives permissions that GPL doesn't. but correct > me if I'm wrong here. Search for just my name in this forum and you can find my opinion to GPL vs. BSD. For our case it is just important, if drivers are "derived work" and therefore violate GPL. I doubt this, to be honest. Ciao Siegbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional comm
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Andreas Jaeger schrieb: > Siegbert Baude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Andreas Jaeger schrieb: >>> My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here: >>> >>> http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489 >> Cited from there: >> In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking >> about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the >> same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source >> driver on all of your hardware. >> So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion >> correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users? > What *I* (this is my blog entry and not representing official > Novell policy as all Coolblogs) say is that I would like to have the > chance to run open source drivers! I understood this, I just used your argument the other way round. Admitted, as mall provocation, but no harm intended. :-) >> And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE, >> otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet >> access, which still is something not everybody in the world has. > You can still run the provided drivers, you will miss 3d support for > Nvidia. The right alternative would be to provide open source > drivers that support the hardware completely, Everbody agrees in that. Let's hope that future will bring this. But until then SUSE is about caring for users, which means giving *them* the choice by still distributing what they need to use their hardware. To the legal implications see my other mail just published. Ciao Siegbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Let me first say, that I perfectly understand the wish for open specs for open drivers. That supporting closed modules is a nightmare, neither Novell nor the kernel folks want to do. And I therefore have no problem in accepting, if they are thrown out because of _these_ reasons. Just call it like this and tell the users "We don't want it, even if it influences your fine experience with our product". What I'm doing in the following is disputing the arguments that throwing out can be argued as "forced by the GPL". Andreas Hanke schrieb: > Siegbert Baude schrieb: >> Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor. > You are wrong: The user's choice is restricted to what the copyright > holder permits. > > It would be a nightmare if non-contributing users could make decisions > that are against the expressed intention of the copyright holders. This > would render the whole concept of copyright law and also copyleft pointless. As Marcel already pointed out, the expressed intention of the copyright holders is the GPL of the kernel source. Anything else would be just insane with regard to the heterogeneous crowd called kernel developers. Any words on any mailing lists or blogs just don't count. So what was never judged in front of a court was the "derived work" part of the GPL. The interpretation of some kernel folks (again there are also contradicting opinions over there) is (in nice words) very "embracing". They say if the proprietary module uses some header files to attach to the kernel interfaces, this means "derived work". But what, if a vendor produces only one piece for many OSs? Let's say a unified driver for Windows, FreeBSD and Linux? And just adds glue to every OS? Do you think you can really say that this work is derived from the Linux kernel then? And yes there is the "FreeBSD Nvidia driver project" at http://fbsd-nvdriver.sourceforge.net/. Read there: [start quote] Q: Will this alone give me accelerated 3d? A: No, this is the stub component to interface with NVIDIA Corporations kernel, in addition to an NVIDIA card that supported 3d acceleration (TNT or later). [end quote] Wrapping Windows drivers for Linux use is common in WLAN area, too, so there are examples for OS independent proprietary drivers. In my conclusion this says, that the argumentation "proprietary drivers in Linux->derived work" is just flawed. Next argument: Where in the GPL are processor "Ring 0" or something similar mentioned? Where "kernel mode" vs. "user land"? Do you think a judge would follow this differentiation, when kernel folks say "proprietary is fine in user land, but not in kernel mode"? In both cases there is just some interface between hardware and driver, syscalls in one case, direct access in the other. Again, I perfectly understand the technical difference and why the kernel folks very much prefer the one solution, but I'm talking about legal issues now. So if there is no mentioning in the GPL of "kernel mode" or "ring 0" and, as mentioned above, using headers doesn't mean derived work, how could a judge differ between accepted user land and "illegal" kernel mode? He just sees code (hardware drivers) running on a system with the Linux kernel as a glue between user and hardware. But somebody tries to convince him that one case is legal whereas the other is illegal, despite no mentioning of the differences in the relevant license. The only difference is, that the licensor in one case says "it is o.k. for me" (he says so, because it does not disturb his technical integrity of the kernel) that the drivers use the kernel interface in user land, but in the other case he says "it is not o.k. for me" (because the driver can tear the complete kernel down). >From the point of view of the judge however, the difference is just the additional demand from the licensor (the kernel folks). But will he find this in the license under which the work is published? Does the judge know anything about linking code, shared libs, statically compiled in or dynamically used? Should he know or should the license just be enough to decide? Let's furthermore assume somebody just takes the kernel, forks it and says, my interpretation of the GPL is, using header files is no derived work. So you have two identical projects with two identical licenses, but one should be illegal with proprietary drivers and one is not? Do you believe this is sensible? As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not, nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also distributing cannot be forbidden. My personal opinion is, there is just an abuse of the GPL in order to force hardware vendors to open specs by social pressure. The GPL never wanted to forbid any use of software together with GPLed code or you could never use any other non-GPL programs on top of your GPL-kernel. The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is t
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Siegbert Baude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Jaeger schrieb: >> My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here: >> >> http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489 > > Cited from there: > In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking > about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the > same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source > driver on all of your hardware. > > > > So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion > correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users? What *I* (this is my blog entry and not representing official Novell policy as all Coolblogs) say is that I would like to have the chance to run open source drivers! > And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE, > otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet > access, which still is something not everybody in the world has. You can still run the provided drivers, you will miss 3d support for Nvidia. The right alternative would be to provide open source drivers that support the hardware completely, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgpsoj28bMAxN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Thomas Hertweck schrieb: [...] > > It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that > closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. [...] We cannot > go on with this "grey zone" that's why I am asking for clarification. > > Cheers, > Th. ok, two points for you ;) I can't tell anymore the number of the paper so I shouldn't talk about it anymore. both sides ( maintainer versus [closed sources] driver vendors ) have problems to show that there point of views are correct and the others aren't. maybe the situation will be better when the "PCI API" that will allow binery drivers to run in userland is part of a kernel some days. and with the "grey zone": I think its clear for all sides that this is something that must be solved. as fast as possible. regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Siegbert Baude schrieb: > T. Lodewick schrieb: >> again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other >> members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of >> some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both >> countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there >> closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. > > Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the > manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their > modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere > are there 3rd party binaries involved. as I have written already here in the thread, I don't have the (printed) papers anymore: it was an article in the paper "c't" from "heise" in the year 2004. I don't have an archiv of the old ones, so I can't tell you the exact number. >> so if they do, there should no >> legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your >> view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and >> closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts >> it is.) > > So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL > world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment? as this is the base for holding copyrights and acting against offence against it you don't realy say that I need to post a link to somewhere, don't you ? >> not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. >> think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist >> about that topic. while some developers accept that there are >> closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. > > So you say yourself that the situation is not clear. the situation is mutch clear then some people like. but in fact not all holder of copyrights act gainst offence. >> "same server = distro": >> the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access >> to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a >> product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence >> LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of >> licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. > > Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. again, this is the base for holding copyright. if you offer access to a program I've written ( so I have the copytights and I choose the licence of the program ) and you also offer access to another program that used something from my program but hits my licence I have two choises: 1. asking you to stop the access to that other program 2. don't give you permisson to distribute my owen software anymore. thats real basic, and you can read about that evey time on any IT-relaited news-site. > And just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux > kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD > kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong. ok. you think also that even if you can do that you also have permission to do that ? or do I missunderstand you here ? I have to say I don't know BSD-licence axactly - but in a lot of discussions in forums ( mainly at the ones at www.heise.de ) about GPL versus BSD I've read that a source code released under GPL can't be also compatible to BSD as BSD gives permissions that GPL doesn't. but correct me if I'm wrong here. > Ciao > Siegbert > best regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
T. Lodewick wrote: > [...] > thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also > ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers > "c't" from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have > an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of > the paper. You could not provide the references, therefore your arguments cannot be verified. In a nutshell, your arguments are therefore of no relevance at the moment. > [...] > I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) > isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a > (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views: > > - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law > - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court > > I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and > I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a > solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and > make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros > to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch > drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the > rights they have. I would like to know whether binary-only kernel drivers, when linked into the GPLed kernel, violate the GPL license. Nobody has been able to show a proof of this statement so far. You are now talking about the general acceptance of the GPL license and whether German courts recognize the importance of the GPL license etc. Yes, they do and that's good! But this is not the point here. It's only about a very simple question, now already mentioned several times. But the answer seems to be very very complicated. And I am not lawyer... > [...] > thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have > there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and > with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" > against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't > solve the problem at all too. It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. The whole discussion would stop if somebody actually had an evidence of this statement. At the moment, it's just a statement without any proof. I believe in open source and open source drivers, so my email cannot be cheap propaganda against it, and indeed it isn't. I am only asking for evidence because I am not taking everything for granted! If this evidence does not exist, then people should stop blaming closed-source drivers and stop threatening companies that produce/distribute these drivers. If the evidence exists, then it should be made public and closed-source drivers should be banned completely. We cannot go on with this "grey zone" that's why I am asking for clarification. Cheers, Th. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Thomas Hertweck schrieb: > [some good points] > > In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the > references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that > were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for > details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really > concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then > usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should > sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions - > although some people don't like it. thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers "c't" from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of the paper. but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the GPL and the german law. if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again. I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views: - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the rights they have. > I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and > might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap > propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not > help to solve the problem at all! thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't solve the problem at all too. > Cheers, > Th. best regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Siegbert Baude schrieb: > Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor. You are wrong: The user's choice is restricted to what the copyright holder permits. It would be a nightmare if non-contributing users could make decisions that are against the expressed intention of the copyright holders. This would render the whole concept of copyright law and also copyleft pointless. > But to get this choice, the distributor has to deliver the binaries, > too. Novell is much more than just a "distributor". Novell is part of the kernel community and cannot do things that the rest of the actively contributing community dislikes without being excluded from the community in the long term. You are totally over-estimating your position as a probably non-contributing user. (Correct me if this assumption is wrong.) As such, you have no rights to make any choices other than the ones granted by the copyright holders. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Andreas Jaeger schrieb: > My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here: > > http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489 Cited from there: In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source driver on all of your hardware. So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users? And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE, otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet access, which still is something not everybody in the world has. Ciao Siegbert P.S.: So from now on I will hopefully remember to change the receiver to the list. ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
T. Lodewick schrieb: > again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other > members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of > some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both > countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there > closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere are there 3rd party binaries involved. > so if they do, there should no > legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your > view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and > closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts > it is.) So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment? > not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. > think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist > about that topic. while some developers accept that there are > closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. So you say yourself that the situation is not clear. > > "same server = distro": > the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access > to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a > product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence > LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of > licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. And just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong. Ciao Siegbert P.S.: And for nearly the last time, sorry for the double mail to Thomas. :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Matthias Hopf schrieb: > On Sep 12, 06 10:13:12 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: >> The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs >> to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for >> the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the >> Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version? > The problem is not linking, but distributing. Matthias, could you shortly explain or give a link to an explanation why distribution is a problem? Is it just because Novell doesn't want to support (read: offer service for customers with problems) those binary modules or because you think, that the GPL doesn't allow the distribution? The first case I can perfectly understand, but the latter case would be really new to me as AFAIK nowhere in the GPL is written something about packages which are given by the same channels than some GPL code. If it were like this, this would mean in the end, that the GPL and the kernel folks can control what you host on your servers, which can just be not true, can it? > Use intel. Only exists onboard. What is the Novell solution for AMD users? > For: "offer us drivers": We are not a hardware vendor. Thus we don't > write drivers ourself. We help fixing them and package them. But you are not willing to distribute them anymore or did I get you wrong? Ciao Siegbert P.S.: Also went to Matthias only in the first time, sorry. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Hi Rebecca Rebecca J. Walter schrieb: > The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on. The > entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL. If you follow the kernel policy, agreed so far. The future will show, what a judge would say about it. IMHO, this answer is not so clear. > By distributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting > violation > of the GPL. The latter I can agree, but please, what is the link between a driver violating the GPL and the interdiction to distribute this driver? IMHO this is nowhere written in the GPL, can you please tell us on which facts/laws/licences this conclusion is based on? > For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to > do. What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legal > consequences. Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor. But to get this choice, the distributor has to deliver the binaries, too. Ciao Siegbert P.S.: Sorry Rebecca, I forgot to change the To: to the list, so you will get this twice. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > [...] > So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers > (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) [...] We all agree? Sorry, no. Even Linus himself says, it's a difficult topic and a "grey zone" at the moment. Some kernel developers say, third-party closed-source drivers are violating the GPL. This can only be true if such drivers, when linked into the kernel, can be considered as "derived from the kernel" - in this case, the closed-source driver is violating the GPL as the kernel itself is distributed under GPL license. However, it's not as clear as some people want us to believe that the third-party driver can be considered as "derived from". The question at the end of the day is how lawyers interpret the term "derived from". As a software developer, my understanding of "derived from" seems to be a bit different from other people's opinion... In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions - although some people don't like it. I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not help to solve the problem at all! Cheers, Th. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 12, 06 10:13:12 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > Sorry if I say this like this, but the position of SuSE / Novell in > this part is just a hypocrisy: > - Novell is developping Xgl / compiz > - Xgl / Compiz would NOT have these fancy features, if not the > proprietary drivers are installed (see also > http://en.opensuse.org/Xgl#Hardware_Advisory) > > So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source > drivers (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) then please: DON'T > force people to use them for having the fancy desktop you're building. > Or at least offer a way to get the latest drivers for the latest kernels > in your Products. I understand your point, and to the most part of it I agree. However, different groups have different opinions, that is the case in every bigger company. And the message to the outside world is pretty clear I think. We won't provide binary modules, but we (hopefully) make it easy for the customer if he decides to do so. Also Xgl/compiz works pretty well for intel chips, except OpenGL and accelerated XVideo (non-fullscreen, that is). > The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs > to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for > the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the > Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version? The problem is not linking, but distributing. > I expect a CLEAR line from Novell in this. Offer us drivers for our > hardware that allows us to use your great Xgl / compiz. Use intel. Unless you want above mentioned features, then you have to decide yourself wether you want the features (and risk not complying to GPL - which isn't totally clear yet), or go the safe path and don't use these features. For: "offer us drivers": We are not a hardware vendor. Thus we don't write drivers ourself. We help fixing them and package them. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 11, 06 23:51:20 -0500, Rajko M wrote: > So, we agree, I just said in different words "it is not that simple" :-) Peace :-) The world is a lovely place ;))) > I expected such answer. It was probably wrong example. Thanks :) > Important is that product without exact plans takes too much time to > make usable. Yes, but the company internally obviously has a plan, as the drivers (the binary ones) hit the street just in time when the hardware is available. We're not on their radar. > > For complex hardware w/o docs with erratas you need direct access to the > > hardware engineers. Which, of course, is only possible in-house. > > That is one of reason that kernel developers want GPLed software, not > proprietary accompanied with NDAs that one day can explode and run them > out of business. There are other issues why the source cannot easily be open sourced, especially third party IP, signed non-disclosure contracts, and being worried about potential patents. Intel has enough cross-license agreements, so they probably don't have to worry. Maybe the AMD/ATI merger could help here. Not so much with NVidia, though. M$ has tons of patents regarding 3D hardware, bought from SGI (when they were still written in capital letters). > > Software has bugs. Period. > > This is a lema in computer science, like it or not: > > All even modestly complex software has bugs. > > Read: helloworld.c has (hopefully) no bugs, all others have. > > Depends on compiler :-) I said hopefully :-P Well, helloworld links libc, which uses the kernel, which uses drivers, which accesses hardware. I guess there *is* a bug lingering in that link... somewhere... CU Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
>>> Reply on 12-09-2006 10:08:28 <<<> Matthias Hopf wrote:> [... a long discussion abut GPL and closed source drivers ... ] Sorry if I say this like this, but the position of SuSE / Novell in this part is just a hypocrisy: - Novell is developping Xgl / compiz - Xgl / Compiz would NOT have these fancy features, if not the proprietary drivers are installed (see also http://en.opensuse.org/Xgl#Hardware_Advisory) So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) then please: DON'T force people to use them for having the fancy desktop you're building. Or at least offer a way to get the latest drivers for the latest kernels in your Products. The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version? I expect a CLEAR line from Novell in this. Offer us drivers for our hardware that allows us to use your great Xgl / compiz. Dominique
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Matthias Hopf wrote: > Rajko, > > On Sep 08, 06 19:44:10 -0500, Rajko M wrote: >>> And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there >>> is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers. >>> >>> It's not so simple. >> It Matthias. >> If we start to run to get more users as the only goal that we going to >> loose even existing base. Linux picks up computer users that know for >> sure that they don't want what is offered in other environments. > > I know. I'm not saying I'm all for binary modules, not at all. I'm just > saying the world isn't black and white. So, we agree, I just said in different words "it is not that simple" :-) >>> There are no specs, so they cannot be published. >>> >>> Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI >>> or NVIDIA. >> That is the same as there is airplane without plans. Do you need this in >> Linux? > > It is *definitvely* not the same. > > - If a plane crashes people die. This is typically not the case if a > graphics driver crashes. > > - Planes don't get obsolete after 2 years. > > - Planes cost a bit more than 200-500 bucks. > > - The airplane market is a little bit bigger than the graphics hardware > market. > > - It is also a little bit more regulated than the graphics hardware > market. I expected such answer. It was probably wrong example. Important is that product without exact plans takes too much time to make usable. > Do I need high-performance graphics in Linux? *YES* > Wouldn't have my job, wouldn't have my PhD without. I agree that we need. Problem is that if any drivers have to break whole concept of open source than it is the same as when Ariane breaks because of some stupid bug. >> Open source has problems with documentation too, but at least, the >> ultimate specification, source code is open, so you can compare to the >> real world. > > Then what? Why is the r200 driver in such a bad shape? It's open source, > and many people are working on it. There is so many pieces of software out there, many people are working on it, but not everyone is able to organize work properly, nor to produce good code. But you know that. > For complex hardware w/o docs with erratas you need direct access to the > hardware engineers. Which, of course, is only possible in-house. That is one of reason that kernel developers want GPLed software, not proprietary accompanied with NDAs that one day can explode and run them out of business. > Other than that you're right, we DO want open source drivers. But not if > that means the producers just kick out the code and abandom it. Because > without input from the original developers they start falling to a > silent, miserable death. We want something like the intel drivers, which > are still mostly being worked on by intel (not directly, but who cares). Intel can make the difference in other companies habits. If Intel can find financial interest to play on open source market, others will rethink about own Linux strategy. >> Once upon a time computer did exactly what is specified. If not vendor >> was laughed out like an incompetent bunch of amateurs. No one wanted >> such reputation because it meant no customers. > > Once upon a time a computer had 640KB of memory, because that was more > than was ever needed. > > Don't, just don't compare the complex beasts we have nowadays with a PC > of 1980 or even a ZX-1 or an old SuperMicro. I compared beasts of today with oldtimers few times. In examples I used where 1970's mainframes specifications. I compared how many people were active in maintenance and programming, and how many today. It is funny that machines, that were smaller than your examples, used to keep up and running few engineers and more technicians, programmers, accountants. Today one man, that often has no basic knowledge about computers, is all that operates "the beast". >> You can imagine how sounds "it is normal that first released version is >> buggy". If first is buggy, and release cycles are so fast, what version >> will have no bugs? The one that is not released? > > Software has bugs. Period. > This is a lema in computer science, like it or not: > All even modestly complex software has bugs. > Read: helloworld.c has (hopefully) no bugs, all others have. Depends on compiler :-) > It's just the number and severence of bugs we are finding in some > products at release time that may really get on one's nerve. On mine, > too, of course. Number and severance. First we never know, second ... actually we don't know that either. We know about discovered bugs. How many is left, and how severe they are we will never know. What we can say is that major roads are without holes, side roads, we don't care. >> While for multimedia computers some bugs are not important, for computer >> as machine that is meant to compute exact values, almost any bug is >> important. It indicates that program is not properly tested, and user >> can't trust that it will pe
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 11, 06 19:21:05 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 06:43:19PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > > Well, not exactly trial-and-error. > > They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in > > silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be > > implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy. > > Ah, now that again sounds a bit more realistic. Yes, but these design specs might even be incomplete, point to other specs that cannot be published (M$ internals), and are typically in a shape that you cannot deliver them outside (contradicting versions, maybe even had-written notes, etc.), under no circumstances. If you want to push the data out, you would have to clean up and check IP - which would cast about the same as creating them in the first place. > Yes, this is true for (almost) the whole software industry. But you can > partition the whole software industrie into two groups: The one that has so > much clue that they update their specs or at least document the problems to > prevent walking into their own trap again and the one that has not. --- From > implementation reviews I must admit that the second group might be > significantly larger... :-/ I assume so. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SuSE labs, Zimmer 3.2.06, Tel. 74053-715 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 06:43:19PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > Well, not exactly trial-and-error. > They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in > silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be > implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy. Ah, now that again sounds a bit more realistic. > You have to work around in the driver, and I assume that approx. 30-50% > of the code is about workarounds. This is only an educated guess, so > don't take my words for granted. > > Of course some errors are only found by trial-and-error, but that is the > case in the whole software industry. Even if you use formal methods, in > that case the driver might do exactly what you specified, but what you > specified is not necessarily what you actually wanted... Yes, this is true for (almost) the whole software industry. But you can partition the whole software industrie into two groups: The one that has so much clue that they update their specs or at least document the problems to prevent walking into their own trap again and the one that has not. --- From implementation reviews I must admit that the second group might be significantly larger... Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpvZZZjo7RXo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 08, 06 12:14:10 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > Good but Intel only produce integrated graphics chips and with the worst > performance in the market. Yes i know Intel is the bigger graphics chips True, but it's getting better. For desktop uses and older games it's certainly enough now. > There is just no open source solution to high performance 3D acceleration in > Linux, is because of linux developers ? or Graphics cards vendors ? or too > fast Release cycles ?, i don't know, and people who actually buy this cards Probably all of that. > And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some > binaries for functions like Macrovision. True, but that doesn't add any real value. > And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add > ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and > don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their > drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting. I still haven't abandomed all hope ;) Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 08, 06 10:59:22 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > > > > > > There are no specs, so they cannot be published. > > > > > > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > > > or NVIDIA. > > > > You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with > > the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the > > quality > > of their drivers... Well, not exactly trial-and-error. They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy. You have to work around in the driver, and I assume that approx. 30-50% of the code is about workarounds. This is only an educated guess, so don't take my words for granted. Of course some errors are only found by trial-and-error, but that is the case in the whole software industry. Even if you use formal methods, in that case the driver might do exactly what you specified, but what you specified is not necessarily what you actually wanted... Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Rajko, On Sep 08, 06 19:44:10 -0500, Rajko M wrote: > > And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there > > is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers. > > > > It's not so simple. > > It Matthias. > If we start to run to get more users as the only goal that we going to > loose even existing base. Linux picks up computer users that know for > sure that they don't want what is offered in other environments. I know. I'm not saying I'm all for binary modules, not at all. I'm just saying the world isn't black and white. > > There are no specs, so they cannot be published. > > > > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > > or NVIDIA. > > That is the same as there is airplane without plans. Do you need this in > Linux? It is *definitvely* not the same. - If a plane crashes people die. This is typically not the case if a graphics driver crashes. - Planes don't get obsolete after 2 years. - Planes cost a bit more than 200-500 bucks. - The airplane market is a little bit bigger than the graphics hardware market. - It is also a little bit more regulated than the graphics hardware market. Do I need high-performance graphics in Linux? *YES* Wouldn't have my job, wouldn't have my PhD without. > Open source has problems with documentation too, but at least, the > ultimate specification, source code is open, so you can compare to the > real world. Then what? Why is the r200 driver in such a bad shape? It's open source, and many people are working on it. For complex hardware w/o docs with erratas you need direct access to the hardware engineers. Which, of course, is only possible in-house. Other than that you're right, we DO want open source drivers. But not if that means the producers just kick out the code and abandom it. Because without input from the original developers they start falling to a silent, miserable death. We want something like the intel drivers, which are still mostly being worked on by intel (not directly, but who cares). > Once upon a time computer did exactly what is specified. If not vendor > was laughed out like an incompetent bunch of amateurs. No one wanted > such reputation because it meant no customers. Once upon a time a computer had 640KB of memory, because that was more than was ever needed. Don't, just don't compare the complex beasts we have nowadays with a PC of 1980 or even a ZX-1 or an old SuperMicro. > You can imagine how sounds "it is normal that first released version is > buggy". If first is buggy, and release cycles are so fast, what version > will have no bugs? The one that is not released? Software has bugs. Period. This is a lema in computer science, like it or not: All even modestly complex software has bugs. Read: helloworld.c has (hopefully) no bugs, all others have. It's just the number and severence of bugs we are finding in some products at release time that may really get on one's nerve. On mine, too, of course. > While for multimedia computers some bugs are not important, for computer > as machine that is meant to compute exact values, almost any bug is > important. It indicates that program is not properly tested, and user > can't trust that it will perform as designed in important functions. No, typically >90% of all bugs will never ever be encountered, or they will have no side effects (which is close enough to not being a bug, I admit). Yes, the space shuttle and ariane software has bugs as well. Only those that showed up bad (read: destroying the aircraft) are noticed by the public. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 03:58:14PM +0200, T. Lodewick wrote: > Stefan Dirsch schrieb: > > > I think we provide this for SLED10, but implemented it a long time > > after 10.1 has been released and since it's unlikely that we'll have > > KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 ... > > > > wouldn't the "tiny-nvidia-installer"-script do mutch the same ? ( I > didn't have used it so I can't say witch driver it will install witch > way ...) Not at all. It doesn't install any KMP package, which means that with the next kernel update the NVIDIA driver will no longer work. BTW, the driver update process with KMP packages has been invented to resolve exactly this problem. Stefan Public Key available -- Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.deGermany -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Stefan Dirsch schrieb: > I think we provide this for SLED10, but implemented it a long time > after 10.1 has been released and since it's unlikely that we'll have > KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 ... > wouldn't the "tiny-nvidia-installer"-script do mutch the same ? ( I didn't have used it so I can't say witch driver it will install witch way ...) Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:53:23PM +0200, T. Lodewick wrote: > > Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard. > > > > http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html > > http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html > > > > Hope this helps. > > I think the point is not to find any working hints how to install the > driver. I think some people like to have a popup during install that > says "hi. I've found a nvidia[ati] card. do you like to use the open > source driver from openSUSE or a driver directly loaded from the vendors > website ?". and after making the choise the script will install the > regarding driver. I think we provide this for SLED10, but implemented it a long time after 10.1 has been released and since it's unlikely that we'll have KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 ... Stefan Public Key available -- Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.deGermany -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Stefan Dirsch schrieb: > Don't we talk about /opt/gnome/bin/gnome-xgl-settings, which is > already in compiz package on (open)SUSE 10.1? > I don't know if we talk about that script, but I think its not a good way to have "only that script" - for me for example there is no neet for XGL + compiz. its more like a "nice to see feature", but it is in conflict ( for me et last ) to run VMWare on my machine ( the graphic speed isn't realy good after installing XGL + compiz ). so, as people don't want to use XGL + compiz they will not get the script. ( ok, I know that I can install compiz without XGL, but when I should install compiz to use that script I also can install the driver directly. however ... ). > Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard. > > http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html > http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html > > Hope this helps. I think the point is not to find any working hints how to install the driver. I think some people like to have a popup during install that says "hi. I've found a nvidia[ati] card. do you like to use the open source driver from openSUSE or a driver directly loaded from the vendors website ?". and after making the choise the script will install the regarding driver. > > Best regards, > Stefan > also best regards from Berlin, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:51:30AM +0200, Martin Schlander wrote: > Søndag 10 september 2006 10:39 skrev HG: > > > Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's > > > site, that's a totally different thing. > > > > Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy > > enough to get the drivers? > > I guess the script can only be used, provided Nvidia and ATi host KMPs for > the > relevant SUSE kernel. Which works (by accident) for SUSE 10.1, since SLE10/10.1 use the same (kernel) code base. > As I understand it is doubtful that ATi and Nvidia will provide KMPs for > openSUSE 10.2 kernel(s). Correct. > I hope the last word hasn't been spoken on that matter. I do hope so as well ... > It's really a feature > that can help move a lot of people to Linux.. especially the ATi-owners. And > also a feature that could set openSUSE a part from other distros. Has > potential to be a killer feature. Of course. Stefan Public Key available -- Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.deGermany -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:39:54AM +0300, HG wrote: > On 9/8/06, Philipp Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > > > >>i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, > >>this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it > >necesary, > >>i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the > >>legal consequences. > > > >Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's > >site, that's a totally different thing. > > Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy > enough to get the drivers? Don't we talk about /opt/gnome/bin/gnome-xgl-settings, which is already in compiz package on (open)SUSE 10.1? Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard. http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html Hope this helps. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available -- Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.deGermany -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Søndag 10 september 2006 10:39 skrev HG: > > Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's > > site, that's a totally different thing. > > Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy > enough to get the drivers? I guess the script can only be used, provided Nvidia and ATi host KMPs for the relevant SUSE kernel. As I understand it is doubtful that ATi and Nvidia will provide KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 kernel(s). I hope the last word hasn't been spoken on that matter. It's really a feature that can help move a lot of people to Linux.. especially the ATi-owners. And also a feature that could set openSUSE a part from other distros. Has potential to be a killer feature. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Hi! First of all, I'm sorry, if this has allready been addressed or that I have missed something in this long thread. On 9/8/06, Philipp Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: >i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, >this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, >i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the >legal consequences. Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's site, that's a totally different thing. Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy enough to get the drivers? -- HG. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Thomas Hertweck schrieb: > T. Lodewick wrote: >> [...] >> in USA and germany, for example: in both >> countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there >> closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. >> [...] > > Please provide the references. > > Cheers, > T. > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I can't post a correct reference as I've read about it in the german magazine "c't" from "heise" in 2004 and I don't have the old ones anymore. however, if you need some reference about the GPL and german court, just have a look here: > http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 it's also from the year 2004; you will find a short (german) opberview as also links to the complete text from court ( as pdf, in german and english ). ( but it doesn't cover the act against hardware vendors that have closed source drivers ). but I will do some research later this weekend. best regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
T. Lodewick wrote: > [...] > in USA and germany, for example: in both > countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there > closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. > [...] Please provide the references. Cheers, T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Matthias Hopf wrote: > On Sep 05, 06 19:34:36 -0500, Rajko M wrote: >> The only thing that we can do is to accept their decision, include such >> hardware in Linux Incompatible list, and advertise that list all over >> the place, to prevent people from buying a lemon. > > And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there > is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers. > > It's not so simple. It Matthias. If we start to run to get more users as the only goal that we going to loose even existing base. Linux picks up computer users that know for sure that they don't want what is offered in other environments. One of "don't like" is what you mentioned in another post > There are no specs, so they cannot be published. > > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > or NVIDIA. That is the same as there is airplane without plans. Do you need this in Linux? Open source has problems with documentation too, but at least, the ultimate specification, source code is open, so you can compare to the real world. Once upon a time computer did exactly what is specified. If not vendor was laughed out like an incompetent bunch of amateurs. No one wanted such reputation because it meant no customers. You can imagine how sounds "it is normal that first released version is buggy". If first is buggy, and release cycles are so fast, what version will have no bugs? The one that is not released? While for multimedia computers some bugs are not important, for computer as machine that is meant to compute exact values, almost any bug is important. It indicates that program is not properly tested, and user can't trust that it will perform as designed in important functions. -- Regards, Rajko. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: >not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this >theory "same server = distribution" is new to me. It doesn't matter *where* you provide it to the public, it's *who* does it that is important. >i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, >this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, >i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the >legal consequences. Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's site, that's a totally different thing. Philipp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some binaries for functions like Macrovision. And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting. I have heard that Intel 3D drivers can be used without the proprietary parts. Is this going to be included in openSUSE ? Or is this already included in alpha 4 ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > The real value-add in ATI and nvidia is performance. Take the time to see > reviews on the net with Intel 3D performance, is just miserable if you > compared with ATI's or nvidia solutions even in integrated mother boards. > Release cycles are too fast, because ATI and nvidia compete with each other > to have the better performance and yes is normal even in windows word that > the first drivers of a new release are chonky. This is certainly true today. Which means that the open source model has something to prove: if we have access to Intel, can we help them do better? > And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add > ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and > don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their > drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting. Ultimately, the goal is to route around ATI and nVidia as damage. That's what open source does -- if you believe in it. :) --g - Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/8, Greg DeKoenigsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote:> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:> >> > There are no specs, so they cannot be published.> >> > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > > or NVIDIA.>> You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with> the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality> of their drivers... Yes, actually, Matthias is exactly right.The graphics hardware industry is in a miserable state for exactly thisreason: they *can't* collaborate. Their only reason for being in businessis to sell hardware, and to sell that hardware they must have value-add. And since it's hard to produce *real* value-add, they instead play sillygames with drivers.Which is why Intel's move into this space is so important. They knowthat, in this case, open source *is* the value-add. A good article on this topic:Good but Intel only produce integrated graphics chips and with the worst performance in the market. Yes i know Intel is the bigger graphics chips vendor, but when people actually need real 3D acceleration, Intel is not a choice, they compete in a specific segment of the market, where 3D acceleration high performance is just not important. They don't need to take care about industrial secrets in theirs cards, because there is just no secrets in those specifics cards, they have just nothing nvidia or ati would like to copy. The real value-add in ATI and nvidia is performance. Take the time to see reviews on the net with Intel 3D performance, is just miserable if you compared with ATI's or nvidia solutions even in integrated mother boards. Release cycles are too fast, because ATI and nvidia compete with each other to have the better performance and yes is normal even in windows word that the first drivers of a new release are chonky. You can probably say's that computer is for serious business, not for games and you probably right if we are talking about companys, but home computers are a complete different story, home computers are used in several ways including games. There is just no open source solution to high performance 3D acceleration in Linux, is because of linux developers ? or Graphics cards vendors ? or too fast Release cycles ?, i don't know, and people who actually buy this cards just don't care, they want the performance they buy for. And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some binaries for functions like Macrovision.And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > > > > There are no specs, so they cannot be published. > > > > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > > or NVIDIA. > > You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with > the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality > of their drivers... Yes, actually, Matthias is exactly right. The graphics hardware industry is in a miserable state for exactly this reason: they *can't* collaborate. Their only reason for being in business is to sell hardware, and to sell that hardware they must have value-add. And since it's hard to produce *real* value-add, they instead play silly games with drivers. Which is why Intel's move into this space is so important. They know that, in this case, open source *is* the value-add. A good article on this topic: http://news.com.com/Intel+aims+for+open-source+graphics+advantage/2100-7344_3-6103941.html --g - Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > On Sep 05, 06 01:01:21 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: > > Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors > > to > > provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you > > lost > > in the first place. > > There are no specs, so they cannot be published. > > Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI > or NVIDIA. You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality of their drivers... Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgp2njf2xQ3ur.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 05, 06 19:34:36 -0500, Rajko M wrote: > The only thing that we can do is to accept their decision, include such > hardware in Linux Incompatible list, and advertise that list all over > the place, to prevent people from buying a lemon. And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers. It's not so simple. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-911-74053-715__) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Sep 05, 06 01:01:21 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: > Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors to > provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you lost > in the first place. There are no specs, so they cannot be published. Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI or NVIDIA. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SuSE labs, Zimmer 3.2.06, Tel. 74053-715 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
> ... but the "shim" is GPL too !! and from my point of view, is just doesn't > matter if nvidia is ok or not to link this "shim" with a binary, they just can't because is GPL, he's binary is braking the GPL from their owns "shim". This is what I thought the situation was, and indeed it would be if the shim were GPL. However, on looking at the provided source to nvidia's shim, and the kernel module it installs it's clear that despite the source being available it is not GPLed. The source states it is under nvidia's own licence, and the kernel module. /lib/modules/2.6.16.21-0.8-default/updates> strings nvidia.ko | grep license license=NVIDIA and from the source: /* _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_BEGIN_ * * Copyright 2001 by NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All * information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to NVIDIA * Corporation. Any use, reproduction, or disclosure without the written * permission of NVIDIA Corporation is prohibited. * * _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_END_ */ No mention of GPL anywhere for the kernel module source, whereas the nvidia-settings and nvidia-installer which are GPLed are clearly stated as being GPLed. benji - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/7, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489There is something i have read here a lot, people looks very concern what are the kernel developers opinion about including or not, non-free modules in the kernel, i don't really understand why that's important, from my point of view their opinion is just irrelevant what really cares is what GPL says and from that's point of view the opinion from a lawyer or a judge is much more relevant, people can't just go and ask every single developer what the GPL means to him, that's the main reason to have a unify licence in first place ( and I'm not saying my point of view is the right one ). The developers point of view, make people don't see the complete scenario some time ( or maybe is me, i don't know ), for example when i read kororaa argument about "Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL "http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752You can see that they said that nvidia drivers have a GPL open source "shim" and a binary part, the "shim" is the part that is linked to the kernel, not the binary part, so they don't brake the GPL. ... but the "shim" is GPL too !! and from my point of view, is just doesn't matter if nvidia is ok or not to link this "shim" with a binary, they just can't because is GPL, he's binary is braking the GPL from their owns "shim". So from those point of view, i don't really care what kernel developers have to says about it, they are developers, not lawyers.-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here: http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489 Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgpYrBZluYXNV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, T. Lodewick wrote: > and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time > to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any > news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it > is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at > some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some > time so that others can work on it. ). Also On the link... The people are choosing to get the driver, they are not getting it from Novell. So the people who have the burden are the individual and the Hardware ... Not Novell. Novell is doing what they think is best for them. Asking what we can do to assist with their efforts might be more valueable, than beating the dead horse. Slang for going over it all again. Maybe a more pro-active ... with the Hardware ... -- Boyd Gerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: > [...] > > > Ok, i think my point is clear and don't need new clarification, I'm still > disagree with you, but there is no misunderstood, just different > interpretation so personally i don't see any point to continue the > discussion. Thanks to respond in respectable way. > > Best regards > you'r welcome . - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > 2006/9/7, Rebecca J. Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ok, Rebecca so i was wrong and putting the driver in the same server is > a violation of GPL licence ... then again: > > suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, linspire, ibiblio, etc > etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers/distros have the kernel > and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory > but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = > distribution" is new to me. I think you are not understanding the issue. The problem is as a distribution they can not be included. Novell made a choice! SUSE versions prior to the current... had a lot of tailored kernels. Recently the kernel people stopped support for anything non GPL. Since that time every distribution with newer kernels had to make a choice. Either accept and honor the GPL or assume the responibility of possible legal ramifications. What Novell choose was to place the burden on the Hardware People where it rightfully should be as you agree. > funny no body have say nothing about this massive gpl violations. The problem is hosting the driver implies distribution. > i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, > this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, > i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the > legal consequences. They go out and download the driver from the vendor sites. That is different than hosting it. Novell is working on solutions to the issuses. It takes time. Watch what happens. -- Boyd Gerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/7, T. Lodewick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ...if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what youhave to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same theother way to other people and other companys that don't have your view. I think thats fair.and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its timeto think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are anynews about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but atsome point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait sometime so that others can work on it. ).Ok, i think my point is clear and don't need new clarification, I'm still disagree with you, but there is no misunderstood, just different interpretation so personally i don't see any point to continue the discussion. Thanks to respond in respectable way. Best regards-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: > first of all: What i never says is that SUSE must put binary drivers > together with the kernel, i understand why they can't do that and I'm > pretty > agree with that too, i just saying they can put it in the same server, > which > according to me is not against GPL. thats _your_ according - but not Novells. there are already a few statements here on the list from Novell / Suse showing a) the point of view of Novell / Suse and b) saying that they are on working for some more userfriendly ways together with developer and hardware vendors ( in this case with nVidia, as I remember ). > > now answering yours .. questions ? > > 1. Because I'm a suser since 6 years know, i like suse and i think is the > best distro out there. > > 2. I have read some of those discussions and i agree to don't put binary > drivers together with the kernel source, but put it in the same server is > just something completely different again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. so if they do, there should no legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts it is.) > > 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to > me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll > desagree. OK then - you said that often. we have read it. we accept that. now accept that other people think another way. > > If i'm wrong, then suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, > ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers have the > kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same > directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = > distribution" is new to me. > ok, a little more theorie then: LAW works on the way, that there must be soneone has to get to the courts when he think someone or something hit his licence. this way it needs that _every_ holder of the licince has to "fight" against every violation. as you mid see: that is time consuming, money consuming. but thats the way LAW works. not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist about that topic. while some developers accept that there are closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. "same server = distro": the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. it doesn't matter if you build both from source, or only one of source and offer the other only as binary or both binary or ony other combination. and it doesn't matter how to grand the access - on a media like CD / DVD or via internet etc. listing distros that offers closed-source-drivers tha way you said: as already written here, it doesn't matter if others are doing so. and it even doesn't matter if it is userfriendly or unfriendly. as someone from the developers on the kernel.org-mailinglist has written some times ago: if that means that there will be no big step for linux to the desktop for the mass then it will so. they don't fight against a company in redmond, but for a free and open sourced alternative operation system. *thats* why so many use linux. not only to have an alternative to windows. if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what you have to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same the other way to other people and other companys that don't have your view. I think thats fair. and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some time so that others can work on it. ). so far, best regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/7, Rebecca J. Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to> me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll> desagree.The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on. The entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL. Bydistributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting violationof the GPL. Ok, Rebecca so i was wrong and putting the driver in the same server is a violation of GPL licence ... then again: suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, linspire, ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers/distros have the kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = distribution" is new to me. funny no body have say nothing about this massive gpl violations. For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to do. What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legalconsequences.i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the legal consequences. http://en.opensuse.org/Using_Xgl_on_SUSE_Linux#Enabling_3D_Acceleration_with_ATI_or_NVIDIA_cards-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
> 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to > me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll > desagree. The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on. The entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL. By distributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting violation of the GPL. For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to do. What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legal consequences. Rebecca --- Note that these are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/7, T. Lodewick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: [to mutch to repeat here]>so, at all:if you like to way Debian handles all that closed-source driver-stuff,and you don't like the way openSUSE / Novell goes - why the hell are u using it ? why not get the Debian-distro, use it, and leave others thattry to do the open-source & law-conform way allone ?and if your new Dedian-system is up and running, just use your favoritesearchengine and have a look into the mailinglists of kernel.org. justlook how often there are discussion about the GPL, binary drivers, andhow to take steps against anything that is in conflict with the GPL.I normaly have big respect of other people mind. I can understand that poeple sometimes think that all this "GPL <--> OSS <--> CS" is bullshitbecause it is not allways userfriendly. but at the same time Iunderstand the programmers that use the GPL as licence. what each individual user is makeing on his owen desktop / server / network doen'tmatter because it is his / here owen decision.asking one or two times on a list or at a forum why something is handledlike the way it is is OK, but rumbling on the nerves of others when it is not the way you like is more then unfriendly.first of all: What i never says is that SUSE must put binary drivers together with the kernel, i understand why they can't do that and I'm pretty agree with that too, i just saying they can put it in the same server, which according to me is not against GPL. now answering yours .. questions ?1. Because I'm a suser since 6 years know, i like suse and i think is the best distro out there.2. I have read some of those discussions and i agree to don't put binary drivers together with the kernel source, but put it in the same server is just something completely different 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll desagree.If i'm wrong, then suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers have the kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = distribution" is new to me. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: >> >> [to mutch to repeat here] > so, at all: if you like to way Debian handles all that closed-source driver-stuff, and you don't like the way openSUSE / Novell goes - why the hell are u using it ? why not get the Debian-distro, use it, and leave others that try to do the open-source & law-conform way allone ? and if your new Dedian-system is up and running, just use your favorite searchengine and have a look into the mailinglists of kernel.org. just look how often there are discussion about the GPL, binary drivers, and how to take steps against anything that is in conflict with the GPL. I normaly have big respect of other people mind. I can understand that poeple sometimes think that all this "GPL <--> OSS <--> CS" is bullshit because it is not allways userfriendly. but at the same time I understand the programmers that use the GPL as licence. what each individual user is makeing on his owen desktop / server / network doen't matter because it is his / here owen decision. asking one or two times on a list or at a forum why something is handled like the way it is is OK, but rumbling on the nerves of others when it is not the way you like is more then unfriendly. (but still) with regards, JBScout aka Thomy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcus Meissner wrote: > Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so) Arjan van de Ven has written an essay which may be the one you're referring to. http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0512.0/0972.html Regards, Carl-Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Bernhard Walle wrote: > Hello, > > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 01:01]: >> Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors >> to >> provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you lost >> in the first place. > > Well, and what is if the hardware vendor develops _no_ driver at all > for Linux after that? > > > Regards, > Bernhard It is simple, if they can afford that than good. The only thing that we can do is to accept their decision, include such hardware in Linux Incompatible list, and advertise that list all over the place, to prevent people from buying a lemon. -- Regards, Rajko. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/5, Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:29:22PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia> driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_ > with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to> distribute this driver all together with the kernel.And how do you build kernel modules without including the kernel headers? Do a favour for yourself, buy a book about C programming and learn some basics orjust stop talking about stuff you don't understand. If you do neither of whatI suggested here I will stop discussing this topic with you now because I have given up that you will ever get it.> By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install> GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is> the illegal too ? I am not sure about that. I'd recommend you ask a lawyer for that question.> So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is> in that server too:>> http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm> http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/1. mirrors.kernel.org is not "the kernel developers".Where do you get the kernel source when is release it ?? is not that server, and is not in the same server the non-free _illegal_ kernel modules ?? So according to yours theory, wish a ever ever have listen it before, the entire kernel just have broke the GPL because have this modules in the same server. I know, i must ask a lawyer about that too and if he doesn't know and just tell me, "it could be" what i must assume is "it is". 2. You still failed to show which package in .../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the nVidia kernel binary module.Here is it, the last one is original driver from nvidia. http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-kernel-source_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-graphics-drivers_1.0.8774.orig.tar.gz Know the description:Package: nvidia-glxVersion: 1.0.8774-2*Section: non-free/x11*Priority: optionalArchitecture: i386*Depends: nvidia-kernel-1.0.8774, x11-common (>= 1:7.0.0), libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libx11-6, libxext6*Suggests: nvidia-settings, nvidia-kernel-source (>= 1.0.8774)Conflicts: nvidia-glx-srcReplaces: nvidia-glx-srcProvides: xserver-xorg-video-1.0Installed-Size: 10620Maintainer: Randall Donald < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Source: nvidia-graphics-drivers*Description: NVIDIA binary XFree86 4.x driver* These XFree86 4.0 / Xorg binary drivers provide optimized hardware acceleration of OpenGL applications via a direct-rendering X Server. AGP, PCIe, SLI, TV-out and flat panel displays are also supported. You can read this in \usr\share\doc\nvidia-glx\copyright when you install the driver: "> My name is Randall Donald and I am the maintainer for the Debian> downloader packages nvidia-glx-src and nvidia-kernel-src. > As stated in your license and the README file > ( "As indicated in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions > are welcome to repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in > whatever package format they wish." )> I wish to include packages containing the Linux driver files in the Debian archive. > I'd like to know if it is legally permitted to distribute binary kernel modules > compiled from the NVIDIA kernel module source and Debian kernel headers. This is fine; thanks for asking. " 3. I already tried you to explain to you that you cannot argue that something is legal just because others do it but it seems you just don't get that.No i don't because you have fail to explain why can't you have a non-free kernel module in the same server, where is the kernel. Not a explanation, not a example, just nothing i just must take your words like a absolutely true, because .. well i don't know, because your name is Robert ? Oh no, i just remember is because i don't get a clue about GPL Is ibiblio against GPL ?? because i'm truly sure they have the kernel in that server and they have some non-free _illegal_ kernel modules somewhere. I just hope, there is no terrible _illegal_ kernel modules in this directory either: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/And if suse/novell remove all non-free kernel modules in future release, is just doesn't matter, because according to you, they can't have those module in the same server. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:58:19PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 23:52]: > > 2. You still failed to show which package in > >.../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the > >nVidia kernel binary module. > > What about nvidia-kernel-2.6.~0.8762+1_i386.deb? That's right. There it is. I would not do that. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpKo4PR6dRD3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Marcus Meissner wrote: > Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so) I'll google it - > Linux worked fine without binary kernel drivers too, even in the desktop > space. MGA G400 ruled then. But of course! I was one of the first people to buy a 3dfx video card back in the day - the voodoo graphix which was the earliest affordable 2d/3d cards, and the in-kernel DRI drivers worked like a champ, no question about it. The landscape has changed around us. Alas, 3dfx is no more, and voodoo graphix cards are getting hard to find. The ati cards with the DRI drivers were always a quick way to lock up the system hard, and I hear that very little has changed on that score. There are few viable alternatives for linux users who need good video performance nowadays. Either you go with nvidia proprietary drivers, which some people object to on religious grounds, but which are indeed fast, stable drivers, or you go with ATI proprietary, which has all the drawbacks of nvidia without the great linux support or quite the same performance, or you go with one of the few video chipsets having full featured OSS drivers - at this point Intel is a promising choice, but that will become clearer as time goes by... Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 23:52]: > 2. You still failed to show which package in >.../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the >nVidia kernel binary module. What about nvidia-kernel-2.6.~0.8762+1_i386.deb? Regards, Bernhard -- Die, die ihre Kinder nicht säugen, weil das für die Mutter Tierquälerei wäre. -- Wau Holland pgpVtnZJWCsF4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:29:22PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia > driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_ > with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to > distribute this driver all together with the kernel. And how do you build kernel modules without including the kernel headers? Do a favour for yourself, buy a book about C programming and learn some basics or just stop talking about stuff you don't understand. If you do neither of what I suggested here I will stop discussing this topic with you now because I have given up that you will ever get it. > By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install > GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is > the illegal too ? I am not sure about that. I'd recommend you ask a lawyer for that question. > So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is > in that server too: > > http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm > http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ 1. mirrors.kernel.org is not "the kernel developers". 2. You still failed to show which package in .../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the nVidia kernel binary module. 3. I already tried you to explain to you that you cannot argue that something is legal just because others do it but it seems you just don't get that. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpKWVlTu2Zfs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/5, Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i> repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your > cd's, not your dvd's but your **server**It does not matter whether you distribute stuff that violates licenses onmedia kits or on a server, even if you repeat this false statement a hundredtimes. What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_ with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to distribute this driver all together with the kernel. By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is the illegal too ? > >Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same> >server> >> as a depositary ??> >> >If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context. >>> I mean "repository", my english is not that good.Ok, then the answer is: _Technically_ you can do this with illegal kernelmodules (or other software violating a license) but it is _illegal_. So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is in that server too: http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/Incredible, Linux kernel just have violate the GPL !! This gonna be a fantastic inquirer story.-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i > repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your > cd's, not your dvd's but your **server** It does not matter whether you distribute stuff that violates licenses on media kits or on a server, even if you repeat this false statement a hundred times. > >Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same > >server > >> as a depositary ?? > > > >If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context. > > > I mean "repository", my english is not that good. Ok, then the answer is: _Technically_ you can do this with illegal kernel modules (or other software violating a license) but it is _illegal_. > Take a better look: > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/ Now you expect me to look into each of these packages just to find out that you are wrong again? But even if it were there it does not matter, it would still be a license violation and I would not do it. If Debian did, I would not care because it would be _their_ risk then, not mine. > So you fix it before 10.1 ?? and what is this: > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/ > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/ What's with this? > Why can't be there nvidia drivers ?? Do you want to repeat me the same sentence every few minutes? I suggest you write it down this time that you don't have to ask again and again: "Because it is a license violation!" > Ok, sorry i'm probably stupid, but again just in case you did't see it here > are non-free kernel modules in: > > suse 10: > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm > > suse 10.1 > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm I'd consider this a bug and if I were Novell I would remove it unless someone explains why Novell thinks this package does not violate the GPL. > So know, again, why the smartlink kernel module is fine, but the nvidia > driver is wrong ?? I don't think the smartlink kernel module is fine. And btw: Doing something illegal just because someone else is doing the same does not make it legal. Otherwise I could argue that it is legal to break into my neighbours house because there are various examples of people breaking into otherones houses. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpMEYmhaiqJP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/5, Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put> non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely > different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary.You are still talking crap. It does not matter _how_ you distribute softwarethat violates a license, just the fact that you distribute it makes the violation.Sure there are commercial add-ons for these distributions. As long as thesecommercial add-ons do not violate a license this is legal but if they _do_violate a license this is no longer legal and this is what we where talking about.> No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in> conflict with GPL licence.Hey, you finally got it! Now you only have to make one final conclusion tofind that binary-only kernel drivers are illegal. I still have some hope left that you will make this.Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your cd's, not your dvd's but your **server** > Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server > as a depositary ??If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context.I mean "repository", my english is not that good. > What about this ??> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb > Is against GPL ??No, because it does not include the violating kernel module at all.Take a better look: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/ > And what about this: > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm > Is against GPL too ??Yes. Didn't you read the discussions on this list some time before 10.1 wasreleased?So you fix it before 10.1 ?? and what is this: http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/ Why can't be there nvidia drivers ??> If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't > can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse> is agains GPL, that's just a lie.I can just repeat: Get a clue!Ok, sorry i'm probably stupid, but again just in case you did't see it here are non-free kernel modules in: suse 10:http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm suse 10.1http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm So know, again, why the smartlink kernel module is fine, but the nvidia driver is wrong ??-- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put > non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely > different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary. You are still talking crap. It does not matter _how_ you distribute software that violates a license, just the fact that you distribute it makes the violation. Sure there are commercial add-ons for these distributions. As long as these commercial add-ons do not violate a license this is legal but if they _do_ violate a license this is no longer legal and this is what we where talking about. > No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in > conflict with GPL licence. Hey, you finally got it! Now you only have to make one final conclusion to find that binary-only kernel drivers are illegal. I still have some hope left that you will make this. > Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server > as a depositary ?? If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context. > What about this ?? > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb > Is against GPL ?? No, because it does not include the violating kernel module at all. > And what about this: > http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm > Is against GPL too ?? Yes. Didn't you read the discussions on this list some time before 10.1 was released? > If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't > can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse > is agains GPL, that's just a lie. I can just repeat: Get a clue! Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpdJuFdAit4V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 14:01 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger: > Why is everybody just pointing the ball around? Sure, it's easy to > say: if the vendor doesn't create drivers, don't buy their hardware. Yes. > Then PLEASE: What graphic card would you suggest at the moment to > have full native 3D support? If this Opensource community is that Intel ChipSet-GPUs. > strong, why is the nvidia driver not capable of 3D? Because they feel No Infos about the hardware, no driver. The livetime of GPUs is so short, if you have to find out everything by reverse engeniering it takes much longer to write the driver then you can buy the hardware. > there is another driver from nVidia? But still they feel that this > one does not suit the needs? That's just bul That's your opinion. > Don't forget: Linux needs the support from Hardware vendors to be > successful on the desktop (as well as on the server, but there at > least graphic is less an issue... YET). I agree, it's good to have > the kernel drivers open, for security revious and development. > There's no question in this. If I would like a Desktop system, but not MS, I would by a Mac If I would like a System with perfekt Hardware support, I would by a Mac If I would like to have a Unix on the Desktop, I would by a Mac But what I want to have, is a free OS, and OS that keeps free in the future, so I'm using Linux. Yes, I would be happy if Linux would get installed on more and more computers, but not at any price. I'm using nv driver (not nvidia) on my GeForce2 MX200 and radeon driver (not fglrx) on my Notebook. I can't use XGL, but it's ok. -- Machs gut| http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/ | http://packman.links2linux.de/ Manfred | http://www.knightsoft-net.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:34:36PM -0700, J Sloan wrote: > Robert Schiele wrote: > > > So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major > > advantage, namely being open-source? > > The advantage is that linux is a modern, robust, full-featured unix > variant. It's stable, and performs well, and is amazingly useful in > diverse situations. It's a great application platform, embedded server, > or power user desktop. I use a suse desktop for gaming/multimedia as > well as work related tasks. > > The fact that it's open source is a bug plus, but there are rapidly > decreasing benefits to the insistence that no closed source software be > allowed to interoperate with the kernel. I'm not ready to say goodbye to > sexy video drivers and great video performance, trading them in for a > clunky, sluggish desktop experience, all in the name of keeping the evil > closed source drivers out. > > I just want things to work, and I think most computer users feel the > same way. and in linux all things should work *at least* as well as in > windows, if not a lot better. Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so) Linux worked fine without binary kernel drivers too, even in the desktop space. MGA G400 ruled then. Ciao, Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Robert Schiele wrote: > So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major > advantage, namely being open-source? The advantage is that linux is a modern, robust, full-featured unix variant. It's stable, and performs well, and is amazingly useful in diverse situations. It's a great application platform, embedded server, or power user desktop. I use a suse desktop for gaming/multimedia as well as work related tasks. The fact that it's open source is a bug plus, but there are rapidly decreasing benefits to the insistence that no closed source software be allowed to interoperate with the kernel. I'm not ready to say goodbye to sexy video drivers and great video performance, trading them in for a clunky, sluggish desktop experience, all in the name of keeping the evil closed source drivers out. I just want things to work, and I think most computer users feel the same way. and in linux all things should work *at least* as well as in windows, if not a lot better. Just my .02 Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
2006/9/5, Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:25:46AM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:> >> >So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major> >advantage, namely being open-source?> >> Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software> available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ...At least for the first three distributions there is no closed source software included in the free version, I am not that sure about Ubuntu. But what doyou want to tell us now? Just because non-free software does exist we whouldresign and give up the idea of free software? Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary. > So been not open source is not the issue, well then the problem is kernel is > GPL and nvidia binarie driver is not ?? _That's mean you can't provide theThat's the legal point, yes.> nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same serverThe GPL does not say anything about _where_ you have to provide the software but _what_ you habe to provide, namely the source code.No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in conflict with GPL licence. > as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal> issue there.Would you mind getting a clue about the GPL before telling other people wherethere are legal issues and where not? Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server as a depositary ??What about this ?? http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.debIs against GPL ??And what about this: http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpmIs against GPL too ??If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse is agains GPL, that's just a lie. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:25:46AM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > > > > > >So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major > > >advantage, namely being open-source? > > > > Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software > > available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ... Fedora, yes. Or at least we're getting there. There's pain involved, by the way. Some members of the Fedora community don't agree with our stand. But we think it's worth it. If you want to follow the conversation: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.maintainers/2559 --g - Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:25:46AM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: > > > >So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major > >advantage, namely being open-source? > > > Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software > available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ... At least for the first three distributions there is no closed source software included in the free version, I am not that sure about Ubuntu. But what do you want to tell us now? Just because non-free software does exist we whould resign and give up the idea of free software? > So been not open source is not the issue, well then the problem is kernel is > GPL and nvidia binarie driver is not ?? _That's mean you can't provide the That's the legal point, yes. > nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same server The GPL does not say anything about _where_ you have to provide the software but _what_ you habe to provide, namely the source code. > as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal > issue there. Would you mind getting a clue about the GPL before telling other people where there are legal issues and where not? Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpe9TNMtdmEk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its majoradvantage, namely being open-source? Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ... So been not open source is not the issue, well then the problem is kernel is GPL and nvidia binarie driver is not ?? _That's mean you can't provide the nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same server as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal issue there. -- Marcel Mourguiart
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia) !!NOSIG!
>>> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 3:33 PM >>> >[...] I think I mus be a to ordinary user and most probably should give up on this topic. Resignation seems to be the best. Let's stop the discussion about that topic at this point, as I don't think anything will come out of it. Dominique TMF is a global management and accounting outsourcing firm with 65 offices in 51 countries and over 1,600 professionals (July 2006). TMF is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Learn more about our unique network and our services and visit our website at www.tmf-group.com. The information contained in this e-mail communication is confidential and solely intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If someone other than the intended recipient should receive or come into possession of this e-mail communication, he/she will not be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to notify the sender and to destroy the original e-mail communication. TMF is neither liable for the correct and complete transmission of the information contained in this e-mail communication nor for any delay in its receipt. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for the presence of computer viruses. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > Yes! Go through the archive and you'll find the first post of me to > start this thread. I started it after discussion with nVidia; They HOST > the packages on their server, but the package came by Novell! So what? They host the drivers and thus take the major legal risk. So be happy with it. What is your problem with that? In your initial posting you wanted to have them on the build service. Why do you want Novell to take a legal risk, nVidia earns money with? > Why is everybody just pointing the ball around? Sure, it's easy to say: Nobody is pointing anything around. Everybody is just providing for free what they are willing to provide. It's just _you_ that is crying for having more for free. If you want that, then provide it. --- And take the legal risk to be sued. > if the vendor doesn't create drivers, don't buy their hardware. Then > PLEASE: What graphic card would you suggest at the moment to have full > native 3D support? If this Opensource community is that strong, why is It is neither mine not any kernel developer's job to suggest you anything convenient. Fighting for something does not mean sitting back and waiting for a convenient solution for everything but it often means to handle some annoyances. > the nvidia driver not capable of 3D? Because they feel there is another > driver from nVidia? But still they feel that this one does not suit the > needs? That's just bul You just don't get it. Those people that are _willing_ to provide open source drivers neither get valuable feedback from most users, nor get they support from the hardware vendors as long as a binary-only driver is around that lazy users just have to install and do no longer care. > Don't forget: Linux needs the support from Hardware vendors to be > successful on the desktop (as well as on the server, but there at least So you think the major goal of the kernel developers is to make Linux successful on the desktop ignoring all other goals? Well, I guess you have to learn that you are wrong. If you just want something that is successful on the desktop then use Windows. > graphic is less an issue... YET). I agree, it's good to have the kernel > drivers open, for security revious and development. There's no question > in this. So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major advantage, namely being open-source? > PS: please forgive me if I start to sound a bit angry, but this > situation MAKES me angry. Feel free to be in any mood you like, although this will not change the situation. If you want to change it, you have to _do_ the change, handling all the consequences that come with that. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpBXVwFp6ADs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
>>> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 2:40 PM >>> >On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:47:48AM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: >> >>> Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 12:00 PM >>> >> should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them. >> Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released >> RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though > >They did not. The release is actually done by the respective hardware >vendors. Novell does only give technical advice. That way the hardware >vendor is the one that takes the major risk to being sued. Yes! Go through the archive and you'll find the first post of me to start this thread. I started it after discussion with nVidia; They HOST the packages on their server, but the package came by Novell! Why is everybody just pointing the ball around? Sure, it's easy to say: if the vendor doesn't create drivers, don't buy their hardware. Then PLEASE: What graphic card would you suggest at the moment to have full native 3D support? If this Opensource community is that strong, why is the nvidia driver not capable of 3D? Because they feel there is another driver from nVidia? But still they feel that this one does not suit the needs? That's just bul Don't forget: Linux needs the support from Hardware vendors to be successful on the desktop (as well as on the server, but there at least graphic is less an issue... YET). I agree, it's good to have the kernel drivers open, for security revious and development. There's no question in this. Dominique PS: please forgive me if I start to sound a bit angry, but this situation MAKES me angry. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Hello, * Dominique Leuenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 13:16]: > But as you said, it's irrelevant, especially for the solution approach I > have. I just need the requested help. Well, sorry, I cannot help you. I personally would appreciate nVidia module packages because I use the nVidia installer myself. For KMPs in general, I sent you a private message. Regards, Bernhard -- 93 Prozent der Amerikaner wissen, dass Rauchen Lungenkrebs verursacht, aber nur 48 Prozent wissen, dass es ein Jahr dauert, bis die Erde einmal um die Sonne gekreist ist. (Quelle: HSIA-Preprint) pgpGdpyvbtAok.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:47:48AM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > >>> Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 12:00 PM >>> > >Well, and what is if the hardware vendor develops _no_ driver at all > >for Linux after that? Well, then the chance is even bigger that someone successfully develops an open-source driver because then there is actually a _need_ for it. If this does not work then you just don't use this hardware with Linux any longer. > To be honest, I understand the point of the kernel development team but > I also understand the hardware vendors not being willing to open their > sources. Sure. I think all smart people here understand both points but understanding the point of someone else does not necessarily mean that you must serve the other party. > Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if > the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia > drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project _Only_ they can sue them. You cannot sue someone for violating a license if you are not the owner of the rights of the software. > should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them. > Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released > RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though They did not. The release is actually done by the respective hardware vendors. Novell does only give technical advice. That way the hardware vendor is the one that takes the major risk to being sued. > it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create > new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver. Ask the hardware vendor for that. > Could anyone give me some indications on how to process creating such an > RPM? I'd take care of all sort of updates (be it new release of nVidia Read the mailing list archives. There are various pointers to RPM documentation. If a specific questions remains, feel free to ask. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgp51b7jEdXMi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
>>> Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 1:56 PM >>> >Hello, > >* Dominique Leuenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 11:47]: >> Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if >> the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia >> drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project >> should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them. >> Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released >> RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though >> it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create >> new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver. > >The RPMs for SLES are hosted by nvidia, not by Novell. Don't know who >builds them, but that's irrelevant. According nVidia, they were built by Novell (see the first mail in this thread) But as you said, it's irrelevant, especially for the solution approach I have. I just need the requested help. Dominique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Hello, * Dominique Leuenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 11:47]: > Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if > the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia > drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project > should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them. > Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released > RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though > it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create > new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver. The RPMs for SLES are hosted by nvidia, not by Novell. Don't know who builds them, but that's irrelevant. Regards, Bernhard -- * Linux Viruscan. Windows 95 found. Remove it? (y/n) pgpyvNW9eDK1k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
>>> Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/05/06 12:00 PM >>> >Hello, > >* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-05 01:01]: >> Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors to >> provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you lost >> in the first place. > >Well, and what is if the hardware vendor develops _no_ driver at all >for Linux after that? To be honest, I understand the point of the kernel development team but I also understand the hardware vendors not being willing to open their sources. Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them. Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver. I think, while focusing on the END-USER, I'll just start to create these RPMs by myself; I guess the .spec file of the released RPMs is available? Up to now I have NO CLUE how to make an RPM, but I have experiance in software packaging in general and I don't see an RPM as something different; so most probable I'll figure out how to do it. Remains only one problem: In best case I can compile and test packages for x86_64, as that's what I'm running myself. Others will be compilable, but I could not test them. Will this be a problem? Could anyone give me some indications on how to process creating such an RPM? I'd take care of all sort of updates (be it new release of nVidia Driver and/or new Kernel's from openSUSE, which require the kernel module to be recompiled). Thank you for all the valued help. Dominique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]