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 185349
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: GPL software users
by dylansmrjones on Sat 25th Nov 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL software users"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

It is not necessarily illegal. It depends on how the linking happens. _If_ the binary blob links to the wrapper it's illegal, but if it's the wrapper that links to the binary blob it'll be perfectly legal.

And distributing the binary blob along side the kernel is under no circumstances illegal, if the blob hasn't been installed. One could download the driver-package from nVidia, put it on an install-cd and unpack the driver during installation. In that case it will be perfectly legal, since the source wrapper hasn't been compiled yet, and the binary blob links to nothing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: GPL software users
by nicolasb on Sat 25th Nov 2006 18:52 in reply to "RE[4]: GPL software users"
nicolasb Member since:
2006-08-22

I'd really like to see someone like you facing an attorney.

"Hey, they just put bittorrent links of Windows Vista ! they aren't distributing it, i swear! it's just Links"

You won't go very far with this kind of defense. Don't try to circumvent the GPL. Putting this on the install CD and automagically installing it without having the user doing it all by himself is clearly illegal.

The law doesn't care of the details, they care about the intentions. You can get your ass raped for having put a .torrent of something illegal. Why it should be different when someone is getting cute with the GPL ?

I'm tired of seeing all those people who's only goal on their pitiful life is not respecting the license of the programs they use. If you don't like what the GPL mean, you are free to use something else, we won't miss you.

Microsoft and Apple EULA are waiting for you.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061116103031303

Read this.

" Now, if you're a certain type of business sharpie, you may thumb your nose and say, so sue me. And indeed that is a tempting possibility. But before you insist, ask yourself this: if two parties go to court in a dispute, and one party says, we knew about the license, and we knew what the terms were, and we deliberately couched our agreement to bypass the clear purpose and the intent of the license when we thought we'd figured out a loophole, do you really believe for a minute that any court of equity will endorse such behavior? "

Truth is, you loose. You can't do something like that, period.

Edited 2006-11-25 18:57

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: GPL software users
by dylansmrjones on Sat 25th Nov 2006 19:25 in reply to "RE[5]: GPL software users"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

"Hey, they just put bittorrent links of Windows Vista ! they aren't distributing it, i swear! it's just Links"

It depends whether I link to the bittorrent files directly or only links to a site with bittorrent links. The latter one is perfectly legal in Denmark, while the first one (deep linking) is unclear. Sometimes people are convicted, but not always.

You won't go very far with this kind of defense. Don't try to circumvent the GPL. Putting this on the install CD and automagically installing it without having the user doing it all by himself is clearly illegal.

Nope, it is not illegal. Circumventing a license is not illegal per se. Putting non-GPL'ed code on a CD with GPL'ed code is perfectly legal, as long as the non-GPL'ed code doesn't link to the GPL'ed code. And since the .zip'ed driver doesn't link to anything it is perfectly legal to distribute and perform automatic unpacking and installation. It is clearly within the word of the GPL even if it is outside the spirit of the GPL (and it clearly is outside the spirit - but that is however irrelevant, since the GPL is technically not violated).

The Microsoft EULA and the Apple EULA is mostly void in Denmark according to "Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret - Lbk. nr. 725 af 6. juli 2005".

I can do anything with GPL'ed software as long as I don't distribute. On my own system I can link to anything I want to. The GPL kicks in when I distribute the software. The GPL is _not_ an EULA. It is merely a license and not a license _agreement_.

Distributing the nVidia driver in .zip'ed uninstalled format alongside the GPL'ed Linux kernel is perfectly legal since the linking is happening on _my_ machine. It is unlinked in distributed form and therefore perfectly legal according to the GPL.

As the GPL says in 2. (last paragraph): "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."

Distributing the non-installed .zip'ed nVidia driver is merely aggregation of another work not based on the Program on the same medium as the Program.

Reply Parent Score: 1