Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Aug 2006 17:50 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Novell and Ximian In a change of heart, Novell has ceased distributing proprietary software modules such as 3D video drivers that plug into the Linux kernel. The change came with Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server 10, released in July. With the move, Novell is aligning itself with the Free Software Foundation, which shuns proprietary software in general but in particular loathes proprietary modules that run as a component of the open-source Linux kernel.
Thread beginning with comment 148194
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
LGPL
by MrEcho on Tue 1st Aug 2006 20:28 UTC
MrEcho
Member since:
2005-07-07

What we need is a LGPL wrapper module for the kernel so that proprietary binaries can access the kernel without having to use the header files.
And from what I can understand, Nvidia already does this on some level.
Also on the plus side of things, this wrapper could have a stable ABI/API.

Linux is choice, let us have our choice on what drivers we want to use!

Reply Score: 1

RE: LGPL
by G. W. on Tue 1st Aug 2006 20:40 in reply to "LGPL"
G. W. Member since:
2006-03-17

> What we need is a LGPL wrapper module for the kernel
> so that proprietary binaries can access the kernel
> without having to use the header files.

Great proposal. Try to get this upstream. You will not succeed:

http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/11/03/

> And from what I can understand, Nvidia already does
> this on some level.

No, NVidia doesn't do this.

> Also on the plus side of things, this wrapper could
> have a stable ABI/API.

Great idea. Try to get the idea of a stable API upstream. You will not succeed:

http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

This file is part of the official Linux kernel documentation.

> Linux is choice, let us have our choice on what
> drivers we want to use!

Before setting up requirements like this one, check your position.

Are you in a position of setting up rules for the Linux driver development model? Who, you think, should set up such rules? Why not the copyright holders?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: LGPL
by MrEcho on Tue 1st Aug 2006 20:50 in reply to "RE: LGPL"
MrEcho Member since:
2005-07-07

Yes having a stable api in the kernel would be a BAD idea. I wasn't talking about the kernel.

But there is server grade hardware out there that the Linux kernel doesn't support right now.(dealt with this last night)
And the single FACT the ATI or Nvidia will NEVER open up their driver or hardware is more cause to have a wrapper on the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: LGPL
by DrillSgt on Tue 1st Aug 2006 23:30 in reply to "RE: LGPL"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"No, NVidia doesn't do this."

As stated by Linus at one point, looking for the link again, using the header files does not constitute a violation of the GPL. The Nvidia module does not link directly to the kernel, but uses an OSS system to do so. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of it. That is why theoretically there is no problem distributing the Nvidia module legal or otherwise. The only problem comes in because the developers want everything to be open source. Fine, they have that right to do so. The kernel developers do not want Linux in wide use, or they would allow this. It really is that simple.

Reply Parent Score: 1