OSNews

nothing. whoever sent the accusing email is obviously an FOSS only nazi.

I thought the whole point behind Linux was to get people free stuff easily. If the drivers are free, they should come with linux. If they don't come with linux, it makes it harder on end users, and is therefore in violation of the basic goal of linux.

In the following sentense the word you referes to whomever it may concern.
If you make it harder for me to run something(ie by not packaging latest and greatest nVidia drivers that are free), then screw your GPL licence, you are just like Microsoft.

I thought the whole point behind Linux was to get people free stuff easily.

You are mistaken. The point behind Linux is much like the point between GNU in general--to preserve the freedom to look "under the hood" where computers are concerned. Sometimes defending freedoms means being inconvenienced here and there.

If the drivers are free, they should come with linux.

The drivers are not Free. They are given at no additional cost by nVidia to nVidia's customers (and to Linux distribution authors). In the latter case they may then be redistributed, but in neither case is looking at or modifying the drivers permitted. As such it is illegal to include the drivers in the Linux kernel.

The issue at hand is a fine legal distinction deciding exactly at what point the driver becomes "part of" Linux and whether or not it is legal to use it at all. The short answer is that nobody really knows and the spectre of lawsuits from pretending it's okay makes people nervous.

I thought the kernel maintainers have made a clear statement that (under the right circumstances) binary-only drivers *are* reasonably independent... After all this is a decision to be made by the authors of all used code (i.e. the kernel code and GPL'ed libraries compiled into the kernel).

Linus himself has said he considers it a gray area centered around whether or not a binary driver comprises a derived work.

He's singled out the nvidia driver before as being marginally acceptable, since the binary portion of the driver wasn't developed specifically for linux but simply translates linux header calls to work with the driver.

Some devs agree with Linus, but the FSF doesn't and many other devs are onside with the interpretation that linking non-GPL code to the kernel is a violation, no ifs ands or buts. And the GPL license applied to the kernel is an unmodified GPL license so there's no specific exclusions included even if the devs allow it.

The issue is gaining a little more visibility now, Novell's new policy is to not support the linking of proprietary modules with the Suse kernel, and in 2008 a patch will even be applied by the owner of the USB subsystem that will prevent proprietary modules from linking to that subsystem. That may not seem like a serious issue on the surface since most USB acitivty would be userspace anyways, but it has the potential to seriously screw over USB-based ISDN users since those drivers do run in kernel space.

Kororra is in violation of the GPL if they're distributing a kernel that is linked with a proprietary driver, but the way around that is to simply ship a clean kernel and allow the user to "install" the driver themselves. That's probably the easiest way around it.

Personally, I hope that something is going to be done to clarify this whole mess. I understand the reasoning against building stable driver interfaces that would encourage proprietary modules, but pragmatically I think the devs need to accept that the situation with hardware vendors isn't going to change anytime soon.

My fear is that we're going to simply wind up seeing more abstraction layers like ndiswrapper in order to implement existing Windows drivers, skirting the GPL issue (since Windows drivers are clearly not a derived work of linux) and leaving users in an even worse mess than they would be with the "evils" of a stable linux ABI.

At the end of the day the average user is going to take their functionality however they can get it, regardless of whether or not they're in synch with the ideals of the devs.

Kororra is in violation of the GPL if they're distributing a kernel that is linked with a proprietary driver, but the way around that is to simply ship a clean kernel and allow the user to "install" the driver themselves. That's probably the easiest way around it.

You are assuming that the binary driver is linked directly to the kernel; this is in this case however not true, as the mail the article tells about explains. In between is an open-source part, and as such this is by all means NOT a clear-cut violation in the sense of taking a GPL'd app, modifying it, and re-distributing it using a closed-source license.

Grey, yes. Clear violation, no.

> You are assuming that the binary driver is linked
> directly to the kernel; this is in this case however
> not true, as the mail the article tells about explains.
> In between is an open-source part, [...]

That's absolutely irrelevant. You cannot introduce an intermediate layer to get around the rules of the GPL. Don't you think someone would have already suggested that for KDE to get around the Qt license if that would work? Or one could claim that the KDE libs themselves already do that since they're LGPL and can thus be linked to by closed source software; it's does not work, read the GPL and the clarifications in the GPL FAQ.

That's not why binary modules are a grey area. Here's the discussion by Linus Torvalds et al. that "elsewhere" is refferring to:

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

Edited 2006-05-14 17:22

There is a transitive relation between the kernel and the binary part, and therefore the binary part needs to be GPL or excluded.

The same is true of Qt. You can build an application with the KDE libraries (which are LGPL), but if you want to distribute it in a closed source format, you must get a Qt license, as Qt is a part of the product (via KDE) and therefore the product is a derived work.

The same it true here, the binary portion is linked to the shim, and the shim is linked to the kernel, and therefore the binary portion is derived (via the shim) from the kernel.

This seems backwards given the OS independent nature of the binary portion, but that's the way it works. Put it another way, the final binary driver supplied with the kernel would be useless if it did not include the shim portion that links into the kernel, therefore it is taking advantage of the kernel facilities, and therefore the entire driver, taken as the sum of its parts, is derived from the kernel.

In theory the copyright holder of the Linux kernel could make a specific exception here if they wished, but there is no one copyright holder: you don't assign copyright to anyone when you contribute a patch (unlike the way the FSF does things) and therefore every contributor maintains copyright of their own little part. So what Linus has to say on the matter is pretty much irrelevant (as the majority of the kernel is written and owned by other people) and in fact a lot of kernel developers are quite opposed to binary modules.

What he needs to do is have Kororaa boot up using a basic driver and launch a program that will download and install the binary driver. As the GPL only applies to distributed works no violation occurs. Someone else on this forum has already stated that the eLive CD does this, it might be worth the maintainer's time to look into it.

I can't help but throw in my voice for all it's worth.

You're right in this case Thom, as long as it's not directly linked I don't see how there could be a problem. That said I don't know too much about the kernel or the understanding between kernel developers on this issue so don't quote me on that.

What strikes me as peculiar is that other distributions can include proprietary drivers for NVidia and ATI hardware, that was one of the surprises (and a nice one at that) when I first tried Xandros Linux. I wonder if this isn't either a scare tactic or a misunderstanding.

The most important thing to do right now is ask questions, and especially ask questions to the accuser and to the distributions like Xandros who managed to get away with distributing such proprietary drivers with their distribution.

Getting ready for a legal fundraiser also wouldn't be a bad idea. It never hurts to plan ahead, as long as your opponent doesn't know.

What strikes me as peculiar is that other distributions can include proprietary drivers for NVidia and ATI hardware, that was one of the surprises (and a nice one at that) when I first tried Xandros Linux. I wonder if this isn't either a scare tactic or a misunderstanding.

The most important thing to do right now is ask questions, and especially ask questions to the accuser and to the distributions like Xandros who managed to get away with distributing such proprietary drivers with their distribution.

IANAL, but I think there's probably a difference between including an installable file as part of a distribution and including an installed file.

Red Hat, Debian, *buntu and now the born-again openSuse are mainstream distros that extoll commitment to community principles of openness and freedom, and state that they will not support or use proprietary, closed source components. I *suspect* that is more of a philosophical stance than a necessarily legal one.

The other issue is whether the binary drivers themselves support re-distribution, some don't, and some like nvidia will, as long as the other terms of the license agreement are met.

Suse used to skirt the issue by using a fetchnvidia.sh script that would effectively download the nvidia the driver with (I believe) a pre-compiled wrapper, making the compile-install procedure transparent to the user. Even *buntu simplifies the procedure for users by including the kernel wrapper as an installable nonfree module and allowing the binary module to be downloaded as a seperate package, which permits apt-get to keep the kernel and nvidia driver in synch without requiring the compile-install script.

I think it's noteworthy though not necessarily relevant that the commercial distros permit simplified installation of binary/proprietary modules versus the community ones that generally don't. If this was a clearcut violation I would think a for-profit organization presents a much more tempting legal target than a globally dispersed community one.

Regardless, I think it would be sad day for the community in general if a legal-precedent was somehow forced through the courts to prove or disprove the validity of the gpl with respect to kernel modules. No good could ultimately come of it.

Not true at all. You may distribute GPL and non GPL stuff on the same CD. If you couldn't then Redhat couldn't distribute thier Graphics, Linspire couldnt distribute Click n Run etc. There are hundreds of examples which prove otherwise.

Not true at all. You may distribute GPL and non GPL stuff on the same CD. If you couldn't then Redhat couldn't distribute thier Graphics, Linspire couldnt distribute Click n Run etc. There are hundreds of examples which prove otherwise.

I never said you couldn't distribute non GPL programs on the same CD as GPL programs. I said you couldn't link non GPL programs with GPL programs and distribute that. That is the reason that you get the message about the nvidia driver "tainting" the kernel.

Sorry, I misread your post, I took it to mean that you couldn't distribute GPL and proprietary code together regardless. Either way these Binary drivers are fine because they are not linked to GPL code either before or after installation. there is a open source linking layer between the 2.

Also, tainting the kernel does not mean linking with, it simply means because the code is binary and the source code is not available, if any bugs arise they cannot be investigated by anyone other than the the module vendor and so the is marked "tainted". This way any report to the kernel developers will be identifiable as tainted and they can ignore them as they are of no use.

Yeah with all of the money, user inertia, and political influence they have, they can really push the guy around.

Within the computer-literate community, they do indeed have influence. If no one wants to use a distro for whatever reason (political/legal/philisophical/whatever) then that distro is effectively dead. Have a look at distrowatch.com; you'll notice that out of the top twenty distros tracked, all of them are regularly maintained. That wouldn't be the case if no one was interested. If Kororaa had just ignored the email and continued work on the distro in question, they would likely be blasted in every blog and news site that has even a passing interest in free-and-open-source computing. They are doing the right thing, in my opinion, by looking into the situation seriously, frivolous as it may seem to many.

The GPL is there for a reason. It is to protect the rights of those who wish to use the GPL software and ensure there is not tainting of the code being distributed. It has to be defended and I am relatively certain that it will not go as far as a court case. He is referring to what other people have suggested to him, not what will absolutely be needed in order to remedy the situation. Lets all just relax until the whole story comes out.

The binary NVIDIA and ATI driver that he has provided, this is why SUSE and others cannot provide it by default and only as a optional download. Thing is elive cd does the same thing, have they had a email about this yet?

It's not as simple as that. The dirvers consist of two parts: an open-source part, and a binary, closed part. The open-source part is built and linked to the kernel; then, this open source part gets linked to the binary, closed part.

Seeing the above I'd say this is NOT a violation fo the GPL, as nothing closed gets linked to the kernel. However the above sketched might be too simpified to be true, though.

I dont think so, the nvidia and ATI driver are non GPL, providing it with a GPL distro is violating it. If you think i'm wrong why do no ther distros provide the nvidia/ATI driver out of the box?, it's because of what i've said.

"distros provide the nvidia/ATI driver out of the box?"

You mean like Xandros and Mandriva right?

http://store.mandriva.com/product_info.php?products_id=287&osCsid=8...
" It includes commercial software (Flash/Java plugins, JDK, etc.) and non-free drivers (Nvidia and ATI video cards) with an auto installation system."

I couldn't get a quote from Xandros that indicated they included the closed source drivers, but I know they do because I own a copy of version 2 and the nvidia drivers were included.

I also recall, though vaguely, that ubuntu included the closed source nvidia drivers with their distribution as well.

Umm... you're wrong there. Lycoris Desktop/LX did. Xandros does. I think Linspire does as well.

SlackerJack said: "If you think i'm wrong why do no ther distros provide the nvidia/ATI driver out of the box?,"

me: bunk! Xandros, and Linspire both have the drivers installed "out of the box". What's the difference between what Korraa has done and what they've done? So he changes the wording on his web site to say "the following parts are non-GPL..." like Xandros and Linspire do, big wup.

As I see it there is a closed proprietary binary module with a OSS source wrapper around it.

I don't consider the shipment of these drivers as a license violation since the closed part isn't a derivative of the Linux source.

One could consider the source part of the nvidia-driver to be a license abstraction layer.

On the other hand, one could claim that this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the GPL, and that would be bad faith and possibly illegal (at least in some countries).

Could be time's up for a legal battle in regard to the definition of "derivative".

Suse (commercial) and others DO provide these drivers, only openSuse don't because all the programs are, as the name suggests, open.

But there is no incentive to do that work if the binary only driver is available for free.

And if a lot of this work is included, the kernel will reach the point where it is entirely reliant on the proprietary closed works of others to function in a meaningful way.

This is not about "open-source" it's about software freedom: the right to take some code, tinker with it, create something new, and release it; and what's more, release it in such a way that your neighbour can then tinker to an equal degree with what you've created.

If the kernel becomes reliant on binary modules, it will no longer be possible for people to tinker with it and release their changes, as the binary vendors will not support what they have done, and they will have no way of changing the vendors codes to support what they've done.

People have missed the point with talk of "zealotry" and so forth here. The point is to maintain the freedoms the current kernel offers to allow users to muck about with it and release their own versions. The only constraint is that you release your own version under conditions as equally free as the original, so others can benefit as much from your work as you did from the originator's work.

There is nothing viral about this. Yes, it places constraints on what you do, but so does almost all software. For the kernel, they require you to release the work under a certain license, for proprietary software, they require you to pay a fee before you're allowed to release the work. In each case, you must submit to the originators demands to benefit from their work, but I think the demands made by the GPL are more reasonable than by a lot of proprietary vendors.

There is always the BSD license of course, but then you are literally giving it all away. Others are free to take your work, improve on it, and charge people for the improvements, and not tell people how the improvements were accomplished. This is okay if you don't place any value on the work that you have, but if you do value what you've created, it is enormously frustrating to see it being taken away from you.

Ultimately the problem here is NVidia and ATI: however people are too concerned with the short-term inconvenience the current status quo necessitates to really focus on them, instead they moan about "zealots" who - if you think the whole thing true - are actually being pretty reasonable.

Edited 2006-05-14 17:40

95% of the population doesn't care about the "Freedom" to tinker with code and/or redistribute it.

then 95% of the population is welcome to keep using windows

Prepare for more similar news

If this is the route Linux developers want to take, fine by me. Just don't expect people like me who just don't give a rat's ass about free, Free, GPL, and what not, to keep using Linux if I'm thereby forced to adopt a viewpoint I do not agree with.

And I hate to break it to them, but that goes for probably 95% of the computing world.

If this is the route Linux developers want to take, fine by me. Just don't expect people like me who just don't give a rat's ass about free, Free, GPL, and what not, to keep using Linux if I'm thereby forced to adopt a viewpoint I do not agree with.

And I hate to break it to them, but that goes for probably 95% of the computing world.

This is a species of drivel that's becoming all too prevalent on the OSNews site lately. It assumes that developing closed-source code under NDA's. distributing binary-only drivers, etc. is somehow the default option, when it's clear that doing so hurts all but the developers of the device/software/OS. It's that kind of thinking that allowed Windows to wipe the floor with Unix in the first place. If IBM had succeeded with its similar plan to wipe PC clone-makers of the face of the earth with the PS/2, we'd still be paying over $2,000 for mid-range computer hardware, and only IBM would benefit. In contrast the benefits to the West (and soon, the rest of the world) of an open PC architecture and open Internet have been incalculable.

Thom, you are not forced to adopt a viewpoint, just comply with GPL license. As simple as that. As you have to comply with EULA license in Windows and another commercial software.

It is so hard to understand?

It is not your owned work. None of them. Usage of it is priviledge - as seen from copyright author's eyes - _not_ right.

Don't like it - choose another reality to live in.

I personally am a huge OS fan (I use Windows XP, OS X, Fedora Core linux, and Solaris), but if something makes an OS unusable to me, I drop it without thinking twice. There are too many options for me to pine after an OS with no 3d video drivers, and the portion of the linux market share that uses linux for gaming is so small, I don't see nvidia or ATI changing their minds. Honestly, BSD isn't so different from linux for my purposes that I can't just drop it and switch. Now I understand why Sun wouldn't go with a GPL license. As easy as it is to use FreeBSD now, and some of its derivatives, I don't see this being a good thing for the linux kernel at all. Aside from a vocal minority I doubt most care so much about a license that they would side with the developers on this. If I can still use XFCE in another free unix environment that 99% of the same stuff is available on, with video drivers that support 3d, I don't see any reason to stay on linux unless I am personally a kernel developer, and I'm not. This is a sad day for linux.

"If this is the route Linux developers want to take, fine by me. Just don't expect people like me who just don't give a rat's ass about free, Free, GPL, and what not, to keep using Linux if I'm thereby forced to adopt a viewpoint I do not agree with.

And I hate to break it to them, but that goes for probably 95% of the computing world."

You are joking around right? You arent forced to adopt a viewpoint you dont agree with. You always have the option to not use linux....simple as that. Linux devels dont give a rats ass about you not giving a rats ass about free, Free, GPL and what not...
-----------------------------------------------------
As far as mixing gpl and non-gpl on a cd, of course you can do that. Nothing wrong with that at all.
-----------------
Is there a good video card choice for linux?

Is there a good video card choice for linux?

Intel, which happens to be the most popular choice, is supported with Free drivers.

"Most popular choice"? Only because 99% of people are not given a choice when they buy a new Dell/HP.

I don't think anyone here would willingly choose Intel integrated graphics if they had the option of that vs. an NVIDIA/ATI card.

People have an option. They have the option to pay more for an nVidia/ATI board to gain something they don't need in the first place.

Intel graphics are good enough for most people's needs. They're even more than enough to run a fully accelerated X desktop.

People have an option. They have the option to pay more for an nVidia/ATI board to gain something they don't need in the first place.

Intel graphics are good enough for most people's needs. They're even more than enough to run a fully accelerated X desktop.

Oh, now that's a level of arrogance I'm not letting slide.

Anyone who does 3d, or even 2d, graphics work, needs hardware acceleration (and color profile support, but that's another rant).

It is not your right, nor the GPL's, to tell ME what I do, or do not need, to use my computer effectively.

And certainly, it's not your right to tell me to stop using AMD cpu's. Ok-- I'll be fair. I'm sure there are standalone Intel GPU's out there with PCI-X connectors. I never looked.

It's becoming more apparent in the last 3 months, that the GPL isn't about "Free Software", the GPL is about restricting what people can, and cannot, do with software licensed under it, even to the point of attempting to punish commercial vendors.

Apparently, the "option" you refer to is that people use an OS such as Windows, or OSX, if they're doing anything other than programming with their computer.

Well, that's a level of misunderstanding of the GPL I'm not letting slide.

The first freedom provided by the GPL is:

'The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'

This means you're absolutely free to run any program you want on top of your Free operating system, free or proprietary.

What the the GPL restricts is your ability to restrict other people when you distribute software under the GPL. If you don't like it, simply don't distribute software under the GPL. The main problem here is not even with the GPL anyway, but the nVidia license.

And I'm sorry if I sound offensive but I have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say I'm telling you not to use AMD CPU's. If you don't care about running non-free programs it doesn't matter to you, but the original poster I replied to does care (that's exactly what was asked). With AMD CPU's the choice of platform with free drivers is more limited, but still there are options available.

If this is the route Linux developers want to take, fine by me. Just don't expect people like me who just don't give a rat's ass about free, Free, GPL, and what not, to keep using Linux if I'm thereby forced to adopt a viewpoint I do not agree with.

I'm sure they'll miss you...

Thom, I absolutely agree with you. I started using Linux because it was (a) technically superior to commercial general-purpose OSes and (b) it was fun to futz around with. It seems, however, that (b) is becoming less so...

I also use an nVidia-based display adapter and have no problem with using their proprietary driver. Unlike some people, I understand the magnitude of the investment they made in the development of their GPUs and appreciate the fact that they reasonably expect a return on that investment. If they feel this is best achieved by protecting their trade secrets (the actual code), that's their call to make and it DOES NOT make them evil.

The more I see of the actions and comments of the GPL and FSF true-believers, the more dismayed I become. If I want ideology, I'll go to church or a political rally. The only philosophy I want with my computing is of the "microkernel-vs-monolithic" variety.

If Solaris or one of the BSDs can meet my technical/fun criteria, they may be seeing a new convert in the near future. Hell, even Windows - at least I'll know what I'm getting (back) into and I WON'T have somebody preaching at me.

(And, yes, I realize my departure from the Linux camp would make absolutely no difference to anyone else.)

I find the fact that distros don't “ship” there product with the drivers but instead allow you do download them, just plain dumb. What's the point, it's just more work for the end user.

That's the point. More work for the end user means more work for ATI and Nvidia customers.

Once allternative like OGC appear one of the selling poits for open source drivers is less work for the customer.

If they are supporters of Linux and open source as they claim they are, then Nvidia and ATI should release their graphics drivers under GPL or atleast LGPL.

Why? Can't you support open source, without supporting the GPL? Since when is open source = GPL, and nothing else?

Thom,
I see your point. Perhaps I should have rephrased the sentence. But I wonder what is stopping them from releasing their drivers (considering the popularity of their graphics cards) in an open source /GPL/LGPL or any other licence which is acceptable to the free software community.

trade secrets.

And IP. There is likey many trademarks and patents involved in NVIDIA/ATI cards and it would be impossible to opensource the drivers. This is the real world and linux needs to grow up to that reality or it will fall behind.

Or...

It could continue to do the work of the FSF and GPL: free the world.

The more popular linux gets, the higher the pressure to drop all this sillyness like copyright, patents will get.

No. Copyright and patents are useful.

Abuse of said things is where the problem lies.

Sure, that's what they want you to believe.

Can you prove it? Can anyone? I don't think so, any "proof" you'll find is either biased, or founded on flawed premisses.

Thats the reason why I say screw it and use FreeBSD as my UNIX environment. Its feature set is on par with Linux and I dont have to see the GPL guys jump on top of tables and scream "FREEDOM!!!" in semi-Mel Gibson in Braveheart style.

The issue is that NO distribution provides the NVIDIA/ATI drive with there cd's, it's a optional download. You CANNOT claim your distribution is released under the GPL when you are providing a non-GPL package such as the nvidia/ATI driver. Why can you people not understand this?

Because it's UTTER BOGUS. The GPL does NOT prohibit putting a non-GPL package on a disc with only GPL packages. You seriously need to read the GPL and its FAQ. How could Firefox be included on a distro disc if non-GPL packages were not allowed?

SO tell me why SUSE have a warning telling you why they cannot provide the nvidia/ati driver? and WHY does no other distro provides the ATI/NVIDIA driver?

It's because of this reason you cannot, If I was wrong they be all providing the NVIDIA/ATI driver with there distribution. Why do you think SUSE provide a non-GPL version?

Lets face it, it was a pretty dumb thing to do providing NVIDIA/ATI driver on your cd, since when has that been the allowed?

Edited 2006-05-14 16:37

It's because of the grey zone area surrounding this matter. It's that simple.

Personally I don't see any violation, since the GPL allows for linking non-GPL'ed software with GPL'ed software, as long as the GPL'ed module is a part of the base system.

I believe FSF and the devs who are against non-GPL'ed modules are mis-interpreting the GPL.

[EDIT:] Removed "and shipping" in second paragraph. The second clause in the GPL-license is somewhat unclear in regard to kernel drivers.

Edited 2006-05-14 17:02

WTF?, gray zone?, it's obvious you dont provide the NVIDIA/ATI driver with your distro cd.

Oh wait, does this mean all distros now can now provide NVIDIA/ATI driver because Kororaa disputes it? Does this mean Microsoft can do this with Windows as well?

SO tell me why SUSE have a warning telling you why they cannot provide the nvidia/ati driver? and WHY does no other distro provides the ATI/NVIDIA driver?

As dylansmrjones already said, it's a grey area, and companies with shareholders (think: Red Hat, Novell, etc.) do not like legal grey areas. It's the same reason as to why Apple will never use Linux as the kernel of MacOS; the GPL, whether people want to hear it or not, contains quite a few terms that are not easily defined and therfore are legally grey.

This is definitely one of them. This is clearly not a violation of the GPL in the sense that taking GPL'd code, altering it, and publishing it under a closed license is, however, some people do think it is. All this equals a grey area, and as such Novell, Red Hat, etc. cannot afford to bundle binary drivers.

Because trust me, they'd sure want to.

Then explain why other distros like Ubuntu, debian, gentoo, fedora dont?

SUSE used to do the same thing before Novell brought them, so thats not the reason.

Then explain why other distros like Ubuntu, debian, gentoo, fedora dont?

SUSE used to do the same thing before Novell brought them, so thats not the reason.

Because they are afraid of legal repercussions too. It's that simple, really. It's flawed logic to say, "well, nobody does it, so it must be illegal!" When it's raining, John uses an umbrella. John is using an umbrella, does that mean it is raining?

No, it doesn't.

You see, since there is no clear definition of what can be considered a derived work, this is a grey area. And as long as nobody is willing to clearly define a derived work, this will remain a grey area. Whether Debian or whatever includes these drivers or not.

Ok, fine but kororaa has proved that this is not right, hence the email so is it any wonder why others have not done this before.

What was he thinking?, Bugger it i'll put the drivers on and see what anyone says anything?, Lindows did the same thing knowing that microsoft would do something. Jump into the gray area and get slapped I say.

Quit being a retard

They don't include them for the exact same reasons. Just because you're a non-profit organization (I'm not sure if any of them actually qualify as an organization) doesn't mean they / the developers can't be taken to court.

What a shot in the arm for the Linux community if everyone was taken to court for violating copyright(left).

And I'm not saying they would be, but if the risk is there. Why not leave things alone?

This is clearly not a violation of the GPL in the sense that taking GPL'd code, altering it, and publishing it under a closed license is, however, some people do think it is. All this equals a grey area, and as such Novell, Red Hat, etc. cannot afford to bundle binary drivers.

I totally agree with you Thom. This confusion in part arises out of Linus's refusal to provide a stable API for binary drivers. Nvidia's approach of providing an open source kernel module that acts as a wrapper to its closed binary portion of the driver is a way around this.

What is needed is for Eben Moglen as the GPL's effective enforcer to make a statement here clarifying the issue. This would also save the Kororaa developer wasting his money on legal fees.

What is needed is for Eben Moglen as the GPL's effective enforcer to make a statement here clarifying the issue. This would also save the Kororaa developer wasting his money on legal fees.

That wouldn't settle it. The only ones who can settle this is the courts, since it's a legal issue.

That wouldn't settle it. The only ones who can settle this is the courts, since it's a legal issue.

For someone to take action they would be required to have standing (IANAL). To me this seems only be the holders of the kernel copyrights or the FSF as the author of the GPL. For Moglen to express his opinion as the pro-bono counsel of the FSF it would clarify the position of the FSF in this case. For the kernel copyright holders the position is more complicated for since unlike much GPL'd software copyrights have not been assigned to the FSF but are held individually by the contributing developers.

It is possible that some single small contributor to the kernel code might try to take action alone and even in the unlikely case of the court did granting him standing to bring a case, the counsel of the FSF would certainly have standing in the case and his submission would carry great weight with the court. Of course if Linus and a number of kernel developers wanted to bring a case they most certainly would be able to.

However it would not be possible for some aggrieved third party eccentric to take a case forward against the Kororaa developer for GPL violation as they would have no standing.

It is possible that some single small contributor to the kernel code might try to take action alone and even in the unlikely case of the court did granting him standing to bring a case, the counsel of the FSF would certainly have standing in the case and his submission would carry great weight with the court.

I agree that it is unlikely that a random contributor to the kernel would be granted standing in court, but the FSF, as author of the license, would have no legal standing, at least in US courts.

Unfortunately for the FSF, the situation with Linux is very clouded, since it is doubtful that anyone can establish copyright to a sufficient degree to have standing in court.

Because they have a license too, that is why distributions do not ship it.
As far as i understand it, it has nothing to do with the GPL itself, since a distribution could always put the driver in plase postinstall.

NVidia's license point 2.1.2 "Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)." does not go for the driver, since it is not exclusively for Linux/FreeBSD or derived systems. (the Windows driver uses a part of the same codebase).

BECAUSE NVIDIA BINARY DRIVER DON'T ALLOW ITSELF BE SHIPPED WITH GPL.

Gosh, read Nvidia driver EULA sometimes It is not Linux to blame, it is only and only Nvidia with it's stupid layers who wants "just to minimize risks".

It's not really a free country if you can own all the slaves you like now is it?

It isn't, and never was. Free is a verb. GPL is used to free software.

It isn't, and never was. Free is a verb. GPL is used to free software.

In it's most common usage, free is an adjective.

The GPL does not free software, but rather, exchanges one set of restrictions for another.

I'm sorry, I know this is totally OT, but why on Earth would someone call their potential users and customers "lazy pigs"???:
http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=static060311-170736

I don't mean to acuse you of trolling or anything, but I searched that document and didn't find any mention of laziness or pigs. And I searched not 10 minutes after you made this post, are you sure he said that?

The 3rd passage under "What's the point of it" reads:
"So, if you're someone who doesn't want to wait to get a nicely configured Gentoo system, is so afraid of the standard install method that it's stopping you from trying Gentoo at all, or you're a lazy pig then this method is for you!"

You're not familiar with self-irony, are you?

>>I'll be going back to BSDs or try out OpenSolaris when i get back in to *nix distributions. I wonder if OpenSolaris will have this problem with its new license....<<

The CDDL doesn't have this problem, the only time that code needs to be released as CDDL is when it's an addition to a file that is already under the CDDL. If you write a kernel driver for Opensolaris (which has a stable kernel ABI) you can release it under any license terms that you want. (CDDL, *BSD, proprietry...)

It's basically "File based licensing" versus "Project based licensing"

Would BSD be able to include the driver in it's install without violating its liscense?

Yes.

Thats because BSD is about Open Source, and not a Free Software.

This dispute isn't about Open Source, it's about Free Software.

Edited 2006-05-14 20:51

This dispute isn't about Open Source, it's about Free Software.

No. This "dispute" is about expediency. Someone is splitting hairs over how far bending their interpretation of the GPL is acceptable, and for some reason has picked a particular distribution to make an "example" of.

The reality is that even the FSF isn't interested in taking the purist position about graphics drivers, because they know that Nvidia and ATI would just take their ball and go home.

The reality is that even the FSF isn't interested in taking the purist position about graphics drivers, because they know that Nvidia and ATI would just take their ball and go home.

The FSF would love for nVidia and ATI to take their ball and go home.

The FSF would love for nVidia and ATI to take their ball and go home.

They may believe that, but they have never act on such a belief.

The FSF is smart enough to be very selective in its enforcement attempts.

They may believe that, but they have never act on such a belief.

They're in no position to act on it. What would you suggest them to do that would make ATI and nVidia take their ball and go home?

Let's not mistake the FSF for the OSI here.

I think RMS and his DONT BUY ATI sign sends a pretty good message... now enforcement is a tough issue.

GPL is born, AFAIK, to protect writers of free software from their work being "stolen" by closing it and redistributing it as closed source software.

The first paragraph of http://www.fsf.org/

"The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant."

So you see, GPL isn't about "protecting" anyone, it's about promoting free software.

Any use of GPL software to promote proprietary software (such as the ati or nvidia driver) is thus against the spirit of the GPL.

Edited 2006-05-14 21:45

Any use of GPL software to promote proprietary software (such as the ati or nvidia driver) is thus against the spirit of the GPL.

It seems pretty much the contrary here. Here proprietary drivers are used to promote free software.

The concept here is that GNU/Linux has much to gain in promotion by showing what a desktop like Xgl can do. Too bad it now needs binary drivers for decent performance, sure, but the costs/benefits balance is much on the favour of Kororaa IMHO.

That's the point. Some flexibility must be allowed IMHO.

Not bad, since the GPL hippies brought it to life to begin with.

1) I am not Tom. My name is Thom. Moot point, you'd say, but after 21 years of people spelling my name wrong, it's starting to piss me off. It's really simple: just put an 'h' between the 't' and the 'o'. That way, you get 'Thom', my name, which is in no way related to 'Thomas' (my full name is Thom Arvid Holwerda).

Moot point, but it needed to be said. Excusez-moi.

2) You're relatively new here, so I pardon you for not knowing this-- but it has been explained numerous times that there's a reason why you cannot moderate staff comments. We know out of experience that there are enough people who will mod us, the staff, down, just because we are the staff. Therefore, we cannot be moderated. If you want proof of this, go visit my blog, and read the 'Expose Kelly' page linked to in the sidebar.

We do not make our own accounts because that would involve too much trouble on our end. You see, we cannot log in from the front-end as normal users do; in order to protect our accounts we must login via a troublesome, difficult way via the OSNews.com back-end. It would simply involve too much work to log in/out every time, just because 2 people and a cow do not understand why we, the staf, cannot be moderated.

And lastly, which renders all this discussion useless: OSNews is OUR website. NOT yours. Hence, WE get to decide who's playing, and by what rules. If you have a problem with that, fine. Leave.

3) Why is my view wrong, but yours correct? Just because I disagree with you, I am wrong, and should not post in this thread? I am no troll, I'm just someone who disagrees with your viewpoint. You better accept people do not always agree with you. Welcome to the real world, sonny.

4) Judging by the, err, spam-like way you post, I am inclined to assume your age still includes either a 2, 3, or a 4 in conjunction to a 1 up front. In essence, for the way you write your post, I could give you an official warning, or even disable your account, but hey, I ain't so bad.

Edited 2006-05-15 09:46

Ban this crackpot, Thom, ASAP.

Sometimes I wish I could mod staff comments up, though.

nVidia makes it pretty clear you can redistribute their drivers:

2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms
of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux
or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived
from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied
and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."

I dunno if the same holds for ATI.