Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 185356
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 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-24
As others have already said in this thread, the use or non-use of proprietary binary modules is NOT just a question of consumer choice. It's also about the choice of license made by developers. Many developers choose the GPL specifically because they believe it does not allow this type of use.
They believe that such use degrades overall freedom.
Even though some people (talking about you NotParker ;o) ) believe that this in itself is a horrible restriction on freedom, that's a debate for another day.
Your own logic above which grants ATI and Nvidia every right to protect their work and not release GPL compatible modules, should be extended to the authors of GPL software who wish to protect their work in their own way.
People who continually contravene the will of those GPL developers are no better than pirates who steal Microsoft software.