OSNews

I really don't need this. I'm voting against this with my wallet. I've already purchased an iMac (17") for one of my daughters for Christmas. I didn't want to get a Windows machine because I don't trust Windows anymore. And I refused to get a machine and install Linux, any Linux distribution, because it's so easy to break and there's little in the way of quality applications that match what my daughter is used to under Windows and Mac OSX from high school. So I bought a Mac. And as time goes along, I'll buy more of them for personal use as well as for work.

With the exception of the hard-core user, Linux is going to make themselves unwelcome with these antics. Who wants to get pulled into this zealot's fight? All most folks want to do is run the hardware they purchased and get the best experience possible with as little hassle as possible. Blocking binary-only "non-free" drivers is the ultimate in hassle. They just want it to work.

And as an embedded developer, I can tell you this: if this really goes into the kernel, I'll look long and hard at another alternative to embedded Linux, starting tomorrow.

This is not a zealot fight. Kernel developers believe that non-GPL modules are a violation of the license of their code. This is a very simple way they found to help enforce their license.

If your lawyers tell you the Linux developers are wrong with their read of the GPL you can take 2 minutes to modify your copy and use that. You can even distribute it as "Wbeebex" if you want to.

It's not so simple on other cases, though. Apple goes through great lengths to assure their EULA is respected. Even if the law tells you their EULA is wrong there's nothing you can do about it, like installing your copy of Mac OS X on a computer not manufactured by Apple.

Microsoft also spends a lot of time to engineer their WGA scheme, which not surprisingly doesn't work too well. But its purpose is to defend the license of their product.

Some people have different standards. It's okay for Apple and Microsoft to defend their copyrighted work, but when Linux developers do a very minor thing with a similar purpose then it's blind zealotry.

And by the way, unlike someone mentioned there's no "time bomb" on the kernel. Non-GPL modules will continue to work fine after Jan 2008, they will only be blocked on versions of the kernel released after that date.

To sum up:

1) Kernel developers are enforcing the license of their work;

2) People that don't agree with their read of the license are still allowed to disagree with the kernel developers;

3) People are being given over one year of notice before this change happens.

Read a bit further down in the thread. Linus himself wrote in explaining how stupid he thinks this idea is, which I would think effectively kills it.

With the exception of the hard-core user, Linux is going to make themselves unwelcome with these antics. Who wants to get pulled into this zealot's fight? All most folks want to do is run the hardware they purchased and get the best experience possible with as little hassle as possible. Blocking binary-only "non-free" drivers is the ultimate in hassle. They just want it to work.

Talk about short-sighted. You're failing to see the other side to this issue. The reason your Mac works so nicely is that Apple has the specs and the sources to all the major hardware and all the drivers. The reason Apple and Microsoft can go mucking around to their hearts pleasure with new driver models and new 3D models is because they have the source to pretty much everything. The Linux developers don't, and that's a major hinderance. So its not just a zealot issue here, but a very pragmatic one: it's hard to maintain code that you don't have the source for, and if you want a first-class experience on your platform, you need to maintain your own drivers.

Let me rephrase this:

"Shut up and stop having opinions. Your semi-public mailing list antics are scaring high school students off your product."


Unfortunately for you, Linux fails to be a product and few people who don't care at all about these issues read these lists (until some "news" site posts links to them). They're of interest to us, but until policy is inacted no one else cares. Even then few people will care...

Anyway though, now that Linus has ended the debate maybe you can go ahead and take your impatient foot out of your impatient mouth and quit getting mad that people who develop for Linux care about the rights of their creative works.

I'm not really sure if this would effect nvidia much or not. Technically, the part of the module that interfaces with the kernel IS opensource. It sort of works as an abstraction layer between the kernel and the actual driver.

Actually the source code that is distributed with the driver set up package is proprietary to NVIDIA and according to the license at the beginning of the file, you're not supposed to even look at it. It's sad, because the foundations of an ABI layer would be a good contribution.

What if that layer was LGPLed? Doesn't the GPL have exceptions for object code that doesn't interact with the GPL software? If modules only used the LGPLed interface from the module, that might be acceptable (IANAL... thank God).