Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Thu 14th Dec 2006 03:00 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 191934
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2005-11-14
This is not a zealot fight. Kernel developers believe that non-GPL modules are a violation of the license of their code. This is a very simple way they found to help enforce their license.
If your lawyers tell you the Linux developers are wrong with their read of the GPL you can take 2 minutes to modify your copy and use that. You can even distribute it as "Wbeebex" if you want to.
It's not so simple on other cases, though. Apple goes through great lengths to assure their EULA is respected. Even if the law tells you their EULA is wrong there's nothing you can do about it, like installing your copy of Mac OS X on a computer not manufactured by Apple.
Microsoft also spends a lot of time to engineer their WGA scheme, which not surprisingly doesn't work too well. But its purpose is to defend the license of their product.
Some people have different standards. It's okay for Apple and Microsoft to defend their copyrighted work, but when Linux developers do a very minor thing with a similar purpose then it's blind zealotry.
And by the way, unlike someone mentioned there's no "time bomb" on the kernel. Non-GPL modules will continue to work fine after Jan 2008, they will only be blocked on versions of the kernel released after that date.
To sum up:
1) Kernel developers are enforcing the license of their work;
2) People that don't agree with their read of the license are still allowed to disagree with the kernel developers;
3) People are being given over one year of notice before this change happens.