Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Mark Shuttleworth is trying to entice OpenSUSE developers to join Ubuntu. "Novell's decision to go to great lengths to circumvent the patent framework clearly articulated in the GPL has sent shockwaves through the community. If you are an OpenSUSE developer who is concerned about the long term consequences of this pact, you may be interested in some of the events happening next week as part of the Ubuntu Open Week."
Thread beginning with comment 185166
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pierino
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.

Reply Score: 5

Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I just read the part about binary blobs in Ubuntu 7.04.

That explicitly violates the terms of the GPL. It seems Ubuntu developers are willing to upset the balance just for Beryl's god damn wobbly windows and rotating cubes.

Fedora Core:
Mod += 5

Reply Parent Score: 5

Rocinante Member since:
2005-11-18

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 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's not necessarily a violation of the GPL. It depends on the license of the binary blob, the way the blob interacts with the kernel and copyright laws in different countries and a gazillion other things.

Reply Parent Score: 4

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

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.

Reply Parent Score: 4