Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Jul 2006 20:16 UTC, submitted by jake tate
Linspire Kevin Carmony of Linspire/Freespire has announced that the first beta of Freespire has been released earlier than anticipated. Get it from the download page. According to Carmony, this release includes out-of-the-box support for proprietary formats such as .mp3 and WMV, plug-and-play support for Ati and nVIDIA cards without user intervention, Click-N-Run, and much more.
Thread beginning with comment 143728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Isn't it violation of GPL?
by butters on Mon 17th Jul 2006 04:04 UTC in reply to "Isn't it violation of GPL?"
butters
Member since:
2005-07-08

It depends on how they do it. If they put the proprietary code on the install CD image, or if the installer pulls it from the net by default, then it is a violation. If the code is not distributed on the CD and the installer (upon detecting the appropriate hardware) prompts the user to accept the license and download the proprietary driver, then it is perfectly legit.

The other distribution you are referring to (I can't remember which one) was a LiveCD that contained the proprietary drivers on the disk and loaded them without asking the user's permission. That got them in trouble.

It's all a load of crap IMHO. So many products and services operate with terms like: "by using this product or service, you agree to abide by our license or terms of service." If these proprietary software vendors would agree to similar terms, then everyone's life would be much easier.

Reply Parent Score: 1

CaptainTux Member since:
2006-07-17

"If these proprietary software vendors would agree to similar terms, then everyone's life would be much easier."

Between the FSF and the OSI, we have our share of licenses and conflicts. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

You're certainly right... but you're taking that statment out of context in hopes of starting one of my least favorite arguments, the one I dread so much, especially the amatuerish brand replayed ad nauseum on OSNews.

Seriously, if you're gunna do the whole GPL/BSD/CDDL debate thing, you gotta do it right, and I've never seen it done right on OSNews, so let's not do it, OK?

Clearly, I was just pointing out that click-through/prompt-through licensing is completely unecessary. These proprietary vendors can assert whatever license agreement they wish without user intervention, so long as it's included prominently in the installation (i.e. the LICENSE or README files).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Between the FSF and the OSI "

Thats two diferent certification :

FSF certify Free softwares.
OSI certify Open Source software.

"we have our share of licenses"

Neither group are responsible for that , its the developper , lawyers and special interest group that are to blame , I dont think it would look good politically to tell a new license maker that there license is rejected on the basis that one almost exactly the same exist , it would be for the courts of each country to decide anyway.

"and conflicts"

There is almost no conflicts between the two group , there is a lot of individuals in those groups who disagree with each others , but its human nature to argue things.

The real problem come from the definitions ( Of what is what ) who are really lax in there terms and allow , Lying , traitor and thieve license to be included.

Open Source software should always be Open Source and Free software should always be Free software with no possibility to change them for any reason to something else. The commercial lies have been proven wrong by 15 years of commercial use.

Open Source dont survive very well on its own , exactly because of those who distort it , If you disagree :

Windows ( Open Source King , who make proprietary code with it )

Apple ( Open Source Prince , who make proprietary code with and sometime let the Open Source community have something back )

GNU/Linux , Free Software.

Explain why those 3 are the Main OS today for the majority and why hardware maker make most hardware with them in mind.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"It depends on how they do it."

Yes.

"If they put the proprietary code on the install CD image"

No , not at all , you can mix proprietary and GPL software on the same CD image.

"or if the installer pulls it from the net by default,"

No , thats not a/the problem either.

You cant link GPL software to proprietary software directly , You cant integrate GPL code in your software/driver if the end result is not GPL.

Kororaa did put ATI and Nvidia propritary module in the Linux kernel on there Live CD and linked them with GPL code directly.

Reply Parent Score: 1