Plenty of loud argument has ensued over whether binary-only drivers belong in an operating system based on open source philosophies. David Chisnall examines the reasoning on both sides.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
Please note that parent is not referring to non-GPL-compatible binary Linux kernel modules being allowed of disallowed by the GPL. He is simply splitting hairs over the use of the word "illegal" to refer to a violation of civil code, under which copyright is established.
Perhaps the people who agree that this is an important distinction should join some sort of club or something?
Member since:2006-07-28
He is simply splitting hairs over the use of the word "illegal" to refer to a violation of civil code, under which copyright is established.
No, he doesn't understand copyright law if he's using the word illegal. You were confused the other day too. It's good that you seem to understand now.
Member since:2006-07-28
Member since:2005-07-06
Seriously, you need to stop posting the "copyright is just civil law" crap, you're 100% full of it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319...
Heck, just watch the FBI warning on any DVD. There are criminal aspects to copyright law and they can cry big fines and jail time.
Member since:
2006-07-28
In the case of Linux, non-GPL binary modules are illegal:
You have no understanding of copyright law. There is no "illegality" involved here.