Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Permalink for comment 116119
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-11
Certainly , your a user , if you feel the proprietary driver are lacking , feel free to make them.
Huh? Whatever are you talking about? This article and the ensuing discussion doesn't concern the availability of proprietary drivers, but the the ethics of using the ones that already exist.
The only one stopping proprietary driver in GNU/Linux is you
You seem to have seriously misunderstood my comment. I'm not complaining about a percieved lack of proprietary drivers. Truth be known, I'm very much in favor of using FOSS drivers wherever possible. What I do have a problem with is those who claim that using proprietary drivers is somehow an ethically suspect behavior (the subject of the article).
Legally , no , they have to comply with the GPL
The Linux kernel is licensed under a modified GPL, which has the effect of making it more hospitable to proprietary drivers than it would be if released under a plain vanilla GPL.