http://www.osnews.com/story/15290/Freespire_Beta_2_Released Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2010, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:23:18 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?146598 http://osnews.com/thread?146598 This sounds preatty impressive...have anyone actually tried this out....for soem reason im assosiating it with linspire... Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (elzurawka) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146602 http://osnews.com/thread?146602 because it _is_ the OSS version of Linspire. They will be basing the next version of Linspire from Freespire 1.1 as you can see from their roadmap here: http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/Freespire_Roadmap


They are trying to do the same thing Redhat/Fedora, Suse/OpenSuse etc are doing with a free version and a pay version and get community involved in development. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (siimo) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146639 http://osnews.com/thread?146639 Seems to be working. There are some bugs (It is beta), but I have had it on my laptop with minimal issues. I like being able to use Apt. Looking forward to seeing what direction the community decides to take with this. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (seakryan) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146659 http://osnews.com/thread?146659 I read the "proprietary or bust" thread on the freespire forums, and I just didn't have the heart to rain on Kevin Carmony's tragic parade.

No matter how you slice it, proprietary kernel modules are illegal. How they are distributed determines who is liable for violating the IP rights of the Linux kernel community. Freespire isn't distributing the proprietary kernel modules with their stubs already built against the kernel headers, so they are in the clear. But since the user agrees to link the proprietary module with the Linux kernel by running (in this case) the appropriate CNR installation routine, the end user is vulnerable to legal action.

Because anyone who distributes the Linux kernel as prescribed by the GPL is a copyright holder thereof, anyone with an ftp server can take you to court for violating their IP. Just because no one (that I know of) has done this doesn't mean it won't happen. Just ask any IP lawyer with expertise in software licensing, they will advise you not to install proprietary Linux kernel modules.

Just as the GNOME folks are concerned that MS is waiting patiently for Mono to gain marketshare before filing suit, the big graphics vendors should be concerned that the FSF is waiting for the Linux graphics market to reach a certain marketshare before suing their customers, forcing them to change their unethical ways.

They are inviting you to break the law. Think about that the next time you install those proprietary graphics drivers. I'm not necessarily claiming that I personally have or haven't installed them in the past, and I can't blame you for doing so, but you should realize that this is illegal. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 04:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (butters) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146713 http://osnews.com/thread?146713 Does anybody have a working eciadsl package for Freespire? Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Temcat) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146726 http://osnews.com/thread?146726 This is FUD. Please show me the clause of GPL license that is violated by installing a proprietary kernel module. As you may or may not know, GPL does not restrict usage of GPL software or linking other software with it (regardless of its license). What GPL does restrict is the rules for distribution of derived works. The end user does not normally distribute the kernel with proprietary modules linked with it and is therefore in the clear, too.

And BTW surely Linspire has better qualified IP lawyers than you can afford. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Temcat) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146752 http://osnews.com/thread?146752 You should try to read up Section 2(b) of the GPL. It clearly says all derivative works of a GPLed program should be free themselves.

Kernel modules are derivative works. They use kernel functions for memory management, module loading etc.

Even if they implement all of their requirements themselves, to qualify as a module they still have to use a few functions that are in the kernel. (such as module_init() )

That would make the module a derivative work of the kernel which implies that it would have to be GPLed and so binary modules are illegal. (if proprietary).Edited 2006-07-27 12:05 Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (silicon) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146797 http://osnews.com/thread?146797 This may be informative:
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
A quote from that page:
"I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very simple." Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ElijahLofgren) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146806 http://osnews.com/thread?146806 What exactly can the community do with a proprietary linux? They seem to imply that you can make copies and give them to friends but I don't think that would be legal. So far I just see it as a no-cost version of linspire with some important differences but that is about all. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (deanlinkous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?146842 http://osnews.com/thread?146842 Most proprietary kernel modules are open source though, just not GPL. Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Z_God) Comments