To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm interested in how it exactly violates the GPL. I know you can't include non-gpl code with GPL code, but I thought that if you include the packages separately with option to install them somewhere along the way that's some kind of loophole?
Feel free to correct me, this is one part of the GPL that's very cloudy and I would sincerely like to know where the line is drawn without diving into legalese 
//I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.
That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL.//
Excuse me? What terms exactly?
The video drivers and other "binary blob" components that are being distributed by Ubuntu aren't GPL software.
Having GPL software on your system in no way requires that the systems has only GPL software installed on it.
I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.
Would you please provide a link to the part you read... because your statement below is simply not true:
That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL.
Blanket statement. Which are exactly the binary modules that explicitely violate the GPL? Nvidia? It doesn't, because it doesn't directly interact with the kernel. It uses a wrapper that is GPL on one hand, and is also compatible with Nvidia's binary blob license.
Other modules, like wifi? I don't use (k)ubuntu, but I was wondering what binary drivers they provide? If they got permission (from manufacturers) to distribute windows drivers and use it with ndiswrapper, than again, where is the explicit violation of the GPL? (again, the same case as with nvidia, ndiswrapper is GPL compatible).
I don't mean to say that all of this is OK. Nvidia, at least I can understand, because trade secrets and real patents are involved (some of which don't even belong to Nvidia, so they don't have the right to GPL it or something). OTOH, using ndiswrapper is evil, b/c it encourages vendors to neglect linux users. Theo's (OpenBSD) stance is the right one here (pressure vendors to provide specifications at least). Accepting linux binary blobs is also evil (now that might be a GPL violation, if they interact directly with the kernel!).
I don't really care about (K)ubuntu criticism, but your statement is simply false or at the very least, misleading (not all binary blobs violate the GPL, especially explicitely as you claim). You either didn't read "the part about binary blobs" very carefully, or simply want inflate the situation to make (K)ubuntu look worse than it really is.





Member since:
2005-07-31
If you are an OpenSUSE developer who is concerned about the long term consequences of this pact your welcome to join with fedora team.