Gargoyle wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:33, Pat wrote: > >> On 14/12/06, alan c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules Banned Starting January 2008 >> ... >>> I note Linus' response which I find a bit reassuring, but I do hope >>> the more 'common' end of common sense can prevail, particularly in >>> ubuntu!
Ben Collins (Ubuntu kernel maintainer) posted in that thread saying he would resist the change too. Also the guy who wrote the patch backed down, I think we're safe for now. > Me too, that's quite a tough one but I think I am favouring > Linus' (and Ubuntu's) way of looking at it. Some parts of the system > are free and open (GPL) because people put in the time and effort to > write and maintain those parts. Others are not free because companies > have spent millions developing XYZ and they want to earn some cash back! Redhat have spent millions developing XYZ, as have IBM and Sun and probably others. They still release free and open code... > Currently I can install Ubuntu using the default settings, and get > only software that comes under GPL. Or, I can enable universe and > multiverse and get software that does not quite fit that mould... > It's my choice. Universe only contains Free Software. Restricted and Multiverse are the non-free repos. > Who is > going to install an operating system onto their machine if it can't > even drive a gfx card to it's full potential? I do on all my machines, I'd guess that many others who simply don't need the full potential do the same. Dean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
