"It's always an interesting day when you get to write a kernel patch, at the urging of Andrew Morton, that notifies the world that non-GPL Linux kernel modules will not work after January 2008 and write some poetry all in the same message."
More here. Hopefully, many closed-source drivers will be opened during the next year if this patch goes through. Update: Linus responds.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-22
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.
This is a zealot fight. Some kernel developers believe non-GPL modules are a violation of the GPL. Others - particularly Linus - believe that you cannot make a blanket statement about that.
What's not in dispute:
Your company designs a new network card. You decide to code a Linux driver for it. You do this by taking the code for an existing driver in the kernel and modifying it to work with your card. In this case, your driver is very clearly a derived work of the kernel and must fall under the GPL.
What is in dispute:
Same network card scenario as above. This time, your company decides to implement a Linux driver by creating a little bridge code to interface between the Linux kernel and your existing Windows codebase. You release the bridge code under the GPL, but release the rest of the driver only in binary form. Some developers - the ones arguing for this change - insist your entire driver codebase is a derived work of the kernel, and therefore must fall under the GPL. Others - including Linus - feel that your Linux driver is a derived work of the Windows driver, therefore, it falls under the same restrictions as your Windows codebase. Under this viewpoint, only the Linux specific glue code is a derived work of the kernel and must be GPLed.
Member since:2005-07-06
While I'm all for enforcing the license/copyright - this is bull.
Seriously. Linux and the GPL are supposed to be all about Freedom. Sure, it needs to remain open - and the GPL (though it has a few flaws) does this well (imho).
The problem is that in many cases these are just individuals or small organizations that use these drivers. I doubt many enterprise Linux customers are installing Nvidia drivers (sure, sure, some might).
So...how's this hurting Linux? How is me installing a driver to make my system as functional (3D wise) as my Windows machine somehow violating copyright?
If Joe Linux installing the NV/ATI driver just to try to make his system comparable is somehow illegal/against the developer's wishes, then when this happens Linux will lose a lot of users. Will it die? Not likely. I'm afraid it will be relegated to a RISC type place in the OS world though.
Maybe I should start looking into BSD
Member since:2006-03-12
Then where do you draw the line. Linus intentionally leaves a grey area for practical(sic) reasons. The main reason its been adopted, grown out of all recognition is the Licence.
Do binary drivers hurt linux...absolutely. 3D on Linux Open-source or not is a poor on Linux. Would the situation be better in a years time if the binary drivers were removed?
Edited 2006-12-14 14:15
Member since:2005-08-11
"ome 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. "
Actually, Linux fans badmouth MS's and Apples liscenses all the time, much louder than this. Just look at the uproar over running Vista Home in a VM
Member since:2005-10-31
Member since:
2005-11-14
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.