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 185348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why is proprietary bad?
by Kokopelli on Sat 25th Nov 2006 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is proprietary bad?"
Member since:

"No pc hardware business model has ever proven to be viable in the long run if it's based on secrecy of something essential."

Should read

"No pc hardware business model has ever proven to be viable in the long run."

Secrecy or lack thereof has not proven to be a point in favor or to the negative to the success of a hardware company. While it will hopefully change in the future, support for non-windows based systems makes only a small difference in desktop targeted hardware.

Would I like for nvidia to release their drivers in an open source format? Absolutely. Do I think we have the right to demand it? Absolutely not. A great deal of time and effort has gone into the drivers and hardware designs for Nvidia and ATI. It is up to them what they do with it. It is up to us to decide if we are willing to accept it by buying the products.

Mark Shuttleworth has come to the reluctant conclusion that the user experience can be made better by including the capability of configuring the vendor supplied drivers by default. i see nothing wrong with this provided that it is optional and the user is given a credible explanation as to advantages and disadvantages.

It is about consumer choice. The consumer can choose to use the open source drivers, or they can use the vendor provided ones. As long as they make an educated decision I see no problem with either decision.

Edited 2006-11-25 18:18

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why is proprietary bad?
by tux68 on Sat 25th Nov 2006 18:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Why is proprietary bad?"
tux68 Member since:

As others have already said in this thread, the use or non-use of proprietary binary modules is NOT just a question of consumer choice. It's also about the choice of license made by developers. Many developers choose the GPL specifically because they believe it does not allow this type of use.

They believe that such use degrades overall freedom.
Even though some people (talking about you NotParker ;o) ) believe that this in itself is a horrible restriction on freedom, that's a debate for another day.

Your own logic above which grants ATI and Nvidia every right to protect their work and not release GPL compatible modules, should be extended to the authors of GPL software who wish to protect their work in their own way.

People who continually contravene the will of those GPL developers are no better than pirates who steal Microsoft software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

nicolasb Member since:

"People who continually contravene the will of those GPL developers are no better than pirates who steal Microsoft software."

Exactly. All we are asking for is : respect the license. You don't like it ? don't use it. We don't care about software pirats and warez adepts.

I'm sure the kind of people trying to desperatly find a loophole in the GPL are the same kind of people that would really enjoy to use Microsoft Office 2012 UltraProfessional Edition Warez Gold Silver.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Kokopelli Member since:

Except the GPL developers work is not being stolen, damaged, or lessened. The GPLed work is still protected in every way as delineated by the GPL v2 license. The nv driver has not been broken due to the offer, nor has the kernel been made inoperable.

Nvidia and ATI believe that the method by which they are making drivers available is within the scope of the GPL and I and many others happen to agree. They are not "contravening" the GPL license they are trying to legally interoperate with it.

Saying that NVidia releasing free as in beer drivers for Linux but not releasing the source is no better than someone knowingly stealing commercial software is highly dubious.

You are free not to use the drivers but to say that offering drivers is the equivalent to illegal distribution of commercial software? I have no basis for common ground with you and leave you to your opinion. Good day.

EDIT: For the record, I do not use the blob drivers. I made a conscious decision that I did not want to rely on an unknown piece of code running at the kernel level in my systems. Since I do not game nor do I do grahics work the Intel chipsets are sufficient for my 3d needs. Where I have Nvidia or ATI chipsets I make due with the open source drivers. This was my decision to make, not yours. If the kernel developers wish to object and refuse to allow the binary drivers it is within their right to take them to court. FSF would be quite capable of handling the case I think. Since ther has not been a legal objection to the providing of the drivers this can be taken as a tacit, if unliked, allowance for distribution.

Edited 2006-11-25 19:17

Reply Parent Score: 3