Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Nov 2010 22:24 UTC, submitted by koki
GNU, GPL, Open Source Now this is interesting. We see what is at its core a very valid concern, in practice not a problem to anyone, and, thanks to the tone of the press release, close to trolling. The Free Software Foundation Latin America is complaining about something that has been known for a while - there is some non-Free code stuck in the Linux kernel (mostly firmware). A valid issue of concern from an idealogical viewpoint, but sadly, the tone of the press release turns this valid concern into something close to trolling.
Thread beginning with comment 449436
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30


Repeat after me: Copyright restricts distribution.

Not true. I believe the Mercurial definitive guide at http://hgbook.red-bean.com/ is a counter-example.
Freely distributable, modifiable, commentable, etc. You may even send feedback to the author. I haven't looked for a copyright notice (or read the book yet) but I presume he retains the copyright, no matter how free he makes his work for others.
Being a copyright owner doesn't make you an evil person all of a sudden. Copyright was legitimate when created. It's what people have been doing on its behalf that has become ugly in some cases.

Reply Parent Score: 2

aargh Member since:
2009-10-12

*Palmface* over misunderstood oversimplification.

Of course, copyright gives the copyright holder the right to control distribution. Of course, he may give it up, retaining other rights (like attribution) or imposing conditions on distribution (like GPL). That's what free software & co. are about.

What we're talking about here is distribution of binary blobs that aren't free software and their copyright holder retains the right to distribute them. IOW, distribution of those binary blobs which Linux distributors don't have the right to distribute.

Reply Parent Score: 3

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I don't understand how your post relates to mine, in which I specifically quoted the specific piece of text that seemed arguable to me. I was not replying to the news item or making my position known about it even though it was my first post on this item.

And what is the "misunderstood oversimplification" about? He/she said "Copyright restricts distribution" without any moderating adverb and I said "not always, see this example". I don't think there is any oversimplification there.

Reply Parent Score: 2