Mailing List Archive: Linux: Kernel

GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

notting at redhat

Dec 14, 2006, 11:32 AM

Post #76 of 214 (5647 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

Rik van Riel (riel [at] redhat) said:
> Maybe we should just educate users and teach them to
> avoid crazy unsupportable configurations and simply buy
> the hardware that has open drivers available?

Educating the users may help, but it's hard to do the
education once they've already bought the hardware. Generally,
it would be 1) buy hardware 2) run whatever comes with it
3) try Linux. Hard to get the 'if you're ever thinking about
running Linux, don't buy XYZ' into that workflow.

> Sure, the process of getting drivers merged upstream[2] can
> take some time and effort, but the resulting improvements in
> driver performance and stability are often worth it. It's
> happened more than once that the Linux kernel community's
> review process turned up some opportunities for a 30% performance
> improvement in a submitted driver.
>
> Hardware companies: can you afford to miss out on the stability
> and performance improvements that merging a driver upstream tends
> to get?
>
> Can you afford to miss out when your competitors are getting these
> benefits?

This is the big point - we need to show the vendors how getting
upstream helps them.

Compare costs of all-in-house development versus shared-with-community
development.

Compare how quickly issues are fixed, and how often drivers actually
regress with in-tree vs. out-of-tree drivers.

Get case studies of drivers that have been opened (qeth? lpfc? Others?)
and get other companies to *go on the record* on how opening their
drivers and getting them upstream has helped them to lower their development
costs and scale their sales.

Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup

Dec 14, 2006, 11:34 AM

Post #77 of 214 (5648 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE. If the code
is FREE then let it be. You can put whatever
you want in the code -- I will remove any such constructs, just like I
remove them frm Red Hat's releases when they put
in the same kind of deliberate breakage for anti-competitive reasons.

You can go and yell at Novell too, since they do the SAME THING with
their releases and mix their modules with Linux.

All someone has to do or say is.

"... I did not ever accept the GPL license with the FREE code I was
given. They said the code was FREE, and I took them
at their word. .."

FREE implies a transfer of ownsership and you also have to contend with
the Doctrine of Estoppel. i.e. if someone
has been using the code for over two years, and you have not brought a
cause of action, you are BARRED from doing so
under the Doctrine of Estoppel and statute of limitations.

Here's what that means so you can look it up:

http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/Estoppel

What Linus argued is that FREE means just that.

Jeff

Scott Preece wrote:

> On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <cw [at] f00f> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
>> > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
>> > convey what it means, either.
>>
>> Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
>
>
> I think it's the combination of "INTERNAL" and "EXPORT" that seems
> contradictory - "If it's internal, why are you exporting it?"
>
> I think "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY" or "...ONLY UNDER_GPL" would make the
> meaning clearer, but I don't really think the gain is worth the pain.
> Anybody using kernel interfaces ought to be able to figure it out.
>
>>
>> But those symbols aren't, they're about internal interfaces that might
>> change.
>
>
> Folks who think this is likely to make a difference in court might
> want to look at
> <http:www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html> for a
> litany of court cases that have rejected infringement claims where a
> much sterner effort had been made to hide or block use of interfaces.
> The article claims that courts have increasingly found that
> interfacing your code to an existing work is not infringement,
> regardless of what you have to work around to do it.
>
> Of course, that's one author's reading of the case law and I'm sure
> there are others who disagree, but it's something you'd want to keep
> in mind in calculating the expected value of a suit...
>
> scott
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

sepreece at gmail

Dec 14, 2006, 11:42 AM

Post #78 of 214 (5663 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <cw [at] f00f> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
> > convey what it means, either.
>
> Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?

I think it's the combination of "INTERNAL" and "EXPORT" that seems
contradictory - "If it's internal, why are you exporting it?"

I think "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY" or "...ONLY UNDER_GPL" would make the
meaning clearer, but I don't really think the gain is worth the pain.
Anybody using kernel interfaces ought to be able to figure it out.

>
> But those symbols aren't, they're about internal interfaces that might
> change.

Folks who think this is likely to make a difference in court might
want to look at
<http:www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html> for a
litany of court cases that have rejected infringement claims where a
much sterner effort had been made to hide or block use of interfaces.
The article claims that courts have increasingly found that
interfacing your code to an existing work is not infringement,
regardless of what you have to work around to do it.

Of course, that's one author's reading of the case law and I'm sure
there are others who disagree, but it's something you'd want to keep
in mind in calculating the expected value of a suit...

scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

hzhong at gmail

Dec 14, 2006, 11:49 AM

Post #79 of 214 (5654 views)
Permalink

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

I'd suggest putting a Documentation/GPL-Symbols to explain this.

Then in the "tainted" message, have a pointer to that documentation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner [at] vger
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner [at] vger] On Behalf Of Scott Preece
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: Chris Wedgwood
> Cc: Eric Sandeen; Christoph Hellwig; Linus Torvalds; Jeff
> Garzik; Greg KH; Jonathan Corbet; Andrew Morton; Martin
> Bligh; Michael K. Edwards; linux-kernel [at] vger
> Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more
> Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
>
> On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <cw [at] f00f> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> > > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL
> doesn't quite
> > > convey what it means, either.
> >
> > Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
>
> I think it's the combination of "INTERNAL" and "EXPORT" that
> seems contradictory - "If it's internal, why are you exporting it?"
>
> I think "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY" or "...ONLY UNDER_GPL" would
> make the meaning clearer, but I don't really think the gain
> is worth the pain.
> Anybody using kernel interfaces ought to be able to figure it out.
>
> >
> > But those symbols aren't, they're about internal interfaces
> that might
> > change.
>
> Folks who think this is likely to make a difference in court
> might want to look at
> <http:www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html
> > for a litany of court cases that have rejected infringement
> claims where a much sterner effort had been made to hide or
> block use of interfaces.
> The article claims that courts have increasingly found that
> interfacing your code to an existing work is not
> infringement, regardless of what you have to work around to do it.
>
> Of course, that's one author's reading of the case law and
> I'm sure there are others who disagree, but it's something
> you'd want to keep in mind in calculating the expected value
> of a suit...
>
> scott
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to
> majordomo [at] vger More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

bunk at stusta

Dec 14, 2006, 11:51 AM

Post #80 of 214 (5640 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +0000, Alan wrote:
> > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
> > > distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
> >
> > Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
> > and people who've no clue about the issue. It's not the way to solve such
> > problems. The world does not need "The war on binary modules". Educate
> > people instead, and talk to vendors.
>
> .... or like Microsoft, who is threatening to make war on end-users
> instead of settling things with vendors. (One of the reasons why I
> personally find the Microsoft promise not to sue _Novell_'s end users
> so nasty. Microsoft shouldn't be threatening anyone's users; if they
> have a problem, they should be taking it up with the relevant vendor,
> not sueing innocent and relatively shallow-pocketed end-users and
> distributors.)
>
> One of the things that I find so interesting about how rabid people
> get about enforcing GPL-only modules is how they start acting more and
> more like the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft every day....

Please don't think or imply I'd plan to do this, I'm only saying that
there's a risk for users in such grey areas.

It could be that someone who wants to harm Linux starts suing people
distributing Linux. If your goal is to harm Linux, suing users can
simply be much more effective than suing vendors...

It could even be that people distributing Linux could receive cease and
desist letters from people without any real interest in the issue
itself - "cease and desist letter"s are so frequent in Germany because
the people who have to sign them have to pay the lawyers' costs that are
usually > 1000 Euro, and that's a good business for the lawyers.

> - Ted

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

davids at webmaster

Dec 14, 2006, 12:08 PM

Post #81 of 214 (5636 views)
Permalink

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

> And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's
> with a Windows driver running under ndiswrapper...

That is something that I think is well worth fixing. Doesn't Linus own the
trademark 'Linux'? How about some rules for use of that trademark and a
'Works with Linux' logo that can only be used if the hardware specifications
are provided?

Let them provide a closed-source driver if they want. Let them provide
user-space applications for which no source is provided if they want. But
don't let them use the logo unless they release sufficient information to
allow people to develop their own drivers and applications to interface with
the hardware.

That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of
your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would
have no objection to also requiring them to provide a minimal open-source
driver. I'm not trying to work out the exact terms here, just get the idea
out.)

DS

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

ben.collins at ubuntu

Dec 14, 2006, 12:19 PM

Post #82 of 214 (5635 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 20:29 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote:
> > You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like
> > bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers.
> > There's no binary-only driver for it (ndiswrapper doesn't count). If the
> > hardware vendor doesn't want to write a driver for linux, you can't make
> > them. You can buy other hardware, but that's about it.
>
> Not that is matters in this discussion, but there are binary Broadcom
> 43xx drivers for linux available.
>
> > Here's the list of proprietary drivers that are in Ubuntu's restricted
> > modules package:
> >
> > madwifi (closed hal implementation, being replaced in openhal)
> > fritz
>
> Well, that's not just one, right?
> That's like, 10 or so for the different AVM cards.
> I'm just estimating. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

One driver, many variations of the chipset. That's true of most drivers.

> (And if I didn't mention it yet; AVM binary drivers are
> complete crap.)

Wont disagree with you there.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

gregkh at suse

Dec 14, 2006, 1:16 PM

Post #83 of 214 (5732 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:26:26PM +0000, Alan wrote:
> > Think of uio as just a "class" of driver, like input or v4l. It's still
> > up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the
> > hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all.
>
> Understood. That leads me to ask another question of the folks who deal
> with a lot of these cards. How many could reasonably be described by the
> following
>
> bar to map, offset, length, ro/rw, root/user, local-offset
> (x n ?)
> interrupt function or null
>
> It seems if we have a lot of this kind of card that all fit that pattern
> it might actually get more vendors submitting updates if we had a single
> pci driver that took a struct of the above as the device_id field so
> vendors had to write five lines of IRQ code, a struct and update a PCI
> table ? That seems to have mostly worked with all the parallel/serial
> boards.

I think that something like this might work out, and it would be a good
goal to get there eventually. But I would like to see a few drivers
using the uio core to see where we can consolidate things like this
first.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

airlied at gmail

Dec 14, 2006, 2:21 PM

Post #84 of 214 (5642 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff [at] garzik> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
> > drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
> > kernel ASAP for example.
>
> ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we can.
>
> Jeff
>

It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
marking it EXPERIMENTAL might work, in practice it will just cause us
headaches at this stage, there isn't enough knowledgeable developers
working on it both support users and continue development at a decent
rate, so mainly ppl are concentrating on development until it can at
least play Q3, and for me dualhead on my G5 :-)

Dave.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

mb at bu3sch

Dec 14, 2006, 2:26 PM

Post #85 of 214 (5652 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:21, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff [at] garzik> wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> > > Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
> > > drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
> > > kernel ASAP for example.
> >
> > ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we can.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
> It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
> supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
> only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
> kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
> marking it EXPERIMENTAL might work, in practice it will just cause us
> headaches at this stage, there isn't enough knowledgeable developers
> working on it both support users and continue development at a decent
> rate, so mainly ppl are concentrating on development until it can at
> least play Q3, and for me dualhead on my G5 :-)

To what degree does it work on the G5?
Can we already drive a desktop system with it?
I'd like to play around with this on my Quad.

--
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

airlied at gmail

Dec 14, 2006, 2:39 PM

Post #86 of 214 (5642 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

> >
> > It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
> > supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
> > only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
> > kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
> > marking it EXPERIMENTAL might work, in practice it will just cause us
> > headaches at this stage, there isn't enough knowledgeable developers
> > working on it both support users and continue development at a decent
> > rate, so mainly ppl are concentrating on development until it can at
> > least play Q3, and for me dualhead on my G5 :-)
>
> To what degree does it work on the G5?
> Can we already drive a desktop system with it?
> I'd like to play around with this on my Quad.
>

2D worked the last time I tested it and fixed up all the problems, it
is slightly faster than nv, but may be more unstable, still only
single head... 3D even on x86 doesn't work yet without pre-loading
nvidia to set the hardware up correctly.. but it's coming along....
there are summary updates posted ~weekly on the nouveau wiki....

Dave.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

mb at bu3sch

Dec 14, 2006, 2:45 PM

Post #87 of 214 (5650 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:39, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > >
> > > It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
> > > supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
> > > only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
> > > kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
> > > marking it EXPERIMENTAL might work, in practice it will just cause us
> > > headaches at this stage, there isn't enough knowledgeable developers
> > > working on it both support users and continue development at a decent
> > > rate, so mainly ppl are concentrating on development until it can at
> > > least play Q3, and for me dualhead on my G5 :-)
> >
> > To what degree does it work on the G5?
> > Can we already drive a desktop system with it?
> > I'd like to play around with this on my Quad.
> >
>
> 2D worked the last time I tested it and fixed up all the problems, it
> is slightly faster than nv, but may be more unstable, still only
> single head... 3D even on x86 doesn't work yet without pre-loading
> nvidia to set the hardware up correctly.. but it's coming along....
> there are summary updates posted ~weekly on the nouveau wiki....

Ok, that's nice to hear. :)
Can't be much more pain than nv, heh.
And as I only have singlehead, anyway, I'll give it a try.

--
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

aoliva at redhat

Dec 14, 2006, 9:28 PM

Post #88 of 214 (5654 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [In reply to]

On Dec 14, 2006, "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey [at] wolfmountaingroup> wrote:

> FREE implies a transfer of ownsership

It's about freedom, not price. And even then, it's the license that
has not cost, not the copyright.

> and you also have to contend with the Doctrine of Estoppel. i.e. if
> someone has been using the code for over two years, and you have not
> brought a cause of action, you are BARRED from doing so under the
> Doctrine of Estoppel and statute of limitations.

Sure, but we're not necessarily talking about code that is two years
old. We're talking about future releases. Then, if someone
interfaces with code that was already there before, they might claim
they're still entitled to do so. But if it's new code they interface
with, or new code they wrote after this clarification is published,
would they still be entitled to estoppel? FWIW, IANAL.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

edi at gmx

Dec 15, 2006, 2:13 AM

Post #89 of 214 (5644 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

#include <hallo.h>
* Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]:
>
> This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
> DOES to create incompatibilities

Just my 0.02� - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class*
interfaces has been replaced with something "protected" by GPL enforcing
macros. What is the point? Nobody wins. The access to the new fine-grained
system has been restricted for users, and distributors (yes, I maintain
a such module) have to work around this in-kernel restriction
and create cludges.

Greg (and others from the "every touch of my bits is a derivation of it
and I need to protect it" party) - what are you thinking? Do you
seriously think that such restrictions would help anyone? IMO protecting
the access to interfaces is an utterly stupid idea in the free software
world.

Eduard.

--
<Ref|ex> Geht 'n Mantafahrer zum Manta-Treffen.
Fragt: F�hrt hier wer Manta
-- #Debian.DE
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

ornati at fastwebnet

Dec 15, 2006, 6:05 AM

Post #90 of 214 (5643 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:11 -0800
"David Schwartz" <davids [at] webmaster> wrote:

>
> That is something that I think is well worth fixing. Doesn't Linus own the
> trademark 'Linux'? How about some rules for use of that trademark and a
> 'Works with Linux' logo that can only be used if the hardware specifications
> are provided?
>
> Let them provide a closed-source driver if they want. Let them provide
> user-space applications for which no source is provided if they want. But
> don't let them use the logo unless they release sufficient information to
> allow people to develop their own drivers and applications to interface with
> the hardware.

This is the same I think, but not Linux specific:

http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open+Hardware+Foundation

------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Mc Namara 12 Jul 06: about the OHF foundation providing
"certificates" for hardware, I'd propose (...) levels.

* First, any company that pledges full and complete interface and
behavioral documentation for a device, any docs necessary to make the
device do everything it is designed to do, and makes it publicly
available under nothing more cumbersome than the basic copyright that
exists on all written works receives one certificate. Somebody else
used "community friendly" or something similar. I don't know what to
call it. Perhaps just "Open Documentation" (...)

* A company that contributes back to the community during the
development of a device get labeled "Community Supporter" or something
similar.

* A company that enters into a legal agreement to release the
entire RTL and supporting information for a project at a given point in
the future (far enough ahead to protect the companies commercial
viability) can get the "Open Hardware" certificate.

------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Paolo Ornati
Linux 2.6.18 on x86_64
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

mr.fred.smoothie at pobox

Dec 15, 2006, 9:44 AM

Post #91 of 214 (5635 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey [at] wolfmountaingroup> wrote:
>
> This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
> DOES to create incompatibilities
> DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.
>
> All someone has to do or say is.
>
> "... I did not ever accept the GPL license with the FREE code I was
> given. They said the code was FREE, and I took them
> at their word. .."

At which point, hopefully everyone in that courtroom besides the idiot
who says this knows the difference between a license and a contract.
If anyone doesn't, they can be referred to:

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."

The code is free, as in "redistributable at no charge as long as you
adhere to the terms of the license."

Your estoppel argument seems too confused between laches, promissory
estoppel and statutes of limitations to even make sense of, sorry.

Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

karderio at gmail

Dec 15, 2006, 3:56 PM

Post #92 of 214 (5635 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

Hi :o)

Linus Torvalds wrote :
> The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the
> exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell
> people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the
> DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly
> granted by copyright law.
>
> Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?
>
> So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not
> surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked
> two-facedness about this.

The comparison of what is being suggested for kernel modules to the
actions of the RIAA doesn't seem very fitting. If anything is being
pushed, and anybody is being told what to do, it seems to be pushing for
"openness" and telling corporations to provide important information
about their products. The RIAA seems to be doing the opposite, enforcing
total control over what they release.

Apparently, the GPL itself is a compromise, in order to assure freedom
of information in a non-ideal world. The GPL combats copyright law with
copyright law, it's paradoxical but not hypocritical, and what is being
suggested here for kernel modules seems analog. To call people who are
struggling for freedom with comparatively few resources "two faced" or
"hypocritical" when they must compromise on their principles doesn't
seem all that fair.

If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I'm generally not
at all combative, and would generally argue for leaving people free to
do as they wish. In this case I think the issue, the freedom of
information, is rather an important one, and within reason measures
should be taken to defend it.

Love, Karderio.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
without darkening me."

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

torvalds at osdl

Dec 15, 2006, 4:24 PM

Post #93 of 214 (5634 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.

I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software
community" is for.

We're "open source", and we're not a religion. We don't "twist peoples
arms". We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them
participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to
believe in the GPL or our ideals. In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one
unified thing to begin with.

We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things
in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage
it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most
particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair
use".

That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly
meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with.

Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it
out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So
arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result
might be worth it. It's still bad.

And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much
blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.

It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to
just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they
want, that "information freedom" will follow.

It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other
viewpoints.

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

alan at lxorguk

Dec 15, 2006, 5:27 PM

Post #94 of 214 (5632 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.

As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
information is generally free in both senses.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

torvalds at osdl

Dec 15, 2006, 5:53 PM

Post #95 of 214 (5645 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Alan wrote:

> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

I would say that that is a different thing. It "takes effort" to actually
hide information, so in that sense, it's actually more expensive to try to
keep it "non-free".

But that has nothing to do with the FSF kind of "freedom", the same way
"no price" has nothing to do with that freedom.

So "information wants to be free" is more about "free as in beer", I'd
argue. Trying to suppress information (or spread mis-information) takes
real effort.

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

karderio at gmail

Dec 15, 2006, 6:32 PM

Post #96 of 214 (5643 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

Re :o)

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> >
> > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
>
> I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software
> community" is for.
>
> We're "open source" and we're not a religion.

In the spirit of mutual understanding, I will not say that I do not care
"what you are for", despite your at least very unfriendly reply. You are
a person, I care about you, no matter how hard that can be.

To be as blatantly frank with you as you are with me, I will say I
personally do not care much for open source. I do not see the point of
having source code if it's owner imposes the same arbitrary restrictions
on my use of it as they can on binary, I want more guarantees than that.

> We don't "twist peoples arms".

I didn't suggest that you twist peoples arms, I was talking about my
imaginary "free software community" ;)

> We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them
> participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to
> believe in the GPL or our ideals.

That seems great, this is also one of the things I aspire to. I was
simply suggesting that perhaps a minor compromise to this principle may
be in order, which is of course debatable.

> In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one unified thing to begin with.

I'm sure they're not, I don't really see how that would work to be
honest.

> We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things
> in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage
> it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most
> particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair
> use".

As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations. In what is the
suggestion for kernel modules fundamentally different from what you
already require of your users ?

> That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly
> meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with.

Precisely. A community grants users the right to an open source kernel,
why should certain vendors take away from this freedom by providing
binary only drivers because they don't agree with that community ?

> Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it
> out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So
> arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result
> might be worth it. It's still bad.

That of course was neither suggested nor implied by what I said, at
least not intentionally.

> And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to
> just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they
> want, that "information freedom" will follow.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I would even go to as
far as encouraging it in a discussion. If I may however, I think it is
no more effort to disagree respectfully, rather than being sarcastic,
insulting and using words that could be interpreted as downright
aggressive.

Of course "freedom of information" could never hold a candle to peoples
freedom, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. There is a big
difference between "reasonable measures" and "fighting", I don't see
where you got that from.

I think that the basic problem for which we are seeking a solution is
that binary drivers do not permit people to "do what they want", which
by your own definition, shows that they take away from "_peoples_
freedom".

> It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other
> viewpoints.

I certainly hope I didn't seem to suggest anything like that, you appear
to be ranting at me because of your disagreements with some third party.
Is "software as a religion" some sort of "joke religion" like Invisible
Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism ?

Love, Karderio.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

torvalds at osdl

Dec 15, 2006, 6:55 PM

Post #97 of 214 (5655 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> certain restrictions and come with certain obligations

Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:

"Derived works have to be under the same license"

where the rest is just really fluff.

But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
what copyright law defines.

And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you
push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work",
you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the
RIAA is your best buddy.

And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_
lines" is exactly that total disaster.

We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by
copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and
too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible
situation we could ever be in.

The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the
sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be. It would be
a total disaster if you couldn't quote other peoples work, and if you
couldn't make parodies on them, and if you couldn't legally use the
knowledge you gained for them.

In other words, copyright MUST NOT be seen as some "we own this, and you
have no rights AT ALL unless you play along with our rules". Copyright
absolutely _has_ to allow others to have some rights to play according to
their rules even without our permission, and even if we don't always agree
with what they do.

And that is why it would be WRONG to think that we have the absolute right
to say "that is illegal". It's simply not our place to make that
judgement. When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the
content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions
doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_.

And no, "BECAUSE I'M GOOD" is _not_ an excuse. It's never an excuse to do
something like that just because you believe you are "in the right". It
doesn't matter _how_ much you believe in freedom, or anything else -
everybody _always_ thinks that they are in the right. The RIAA I'm sure
is in a moral lather because they are protecting their own stronghold of
morality against the infidels and barbarians at the gate.

So don't go talking about how we should twist peoples arms and force them
to be open source of free software. Instead, BE HAPPY that people can take
advantage of "loopholes" in copyright protections and can legally do
things that you as the copyright owner might not like. Because those
"loopholes" are in the end what protects YOU.

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

jdow at earthlink

Dec 15, 2006, 7:59 PM

Post #98 of 214 (5650 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

From: "Alan" <alan [at] lxorguk>

>> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor
>> is
>> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

Alan, you might as well declare a rock wants to be free. Information
does not have a brain that could in any way want to be free. It is all
people who want something for nothing who want information to be free.

{^_^} JOanne

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

w at 1wt

Dec 15, 2006, 10:43 PM

Post #99 of 214 (5646 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> >
> > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
>
> Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
>
> "Derived works have to be under the same license"
>
> where the rest is just really fluff.
>
> But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
> what copyright law defines.
>
> And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you
> push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work",
> you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the
> RIAA is your best buddy.
>
> And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_
> lines" is exactly that total disaster.
>
> We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by
> copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and
> too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible
> situation we could ever be in.
>
> The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the
> sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.

All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
(eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.

This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
doing legal things or not.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
your teacher hat once a month ? :-)

Regards,
Willy

[1] http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.3/src/LICENSE

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

rjw at sisk

Dec 16, 2006, 2:28 AM

Post #100 of 214 (5637 views)
Permalink

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] [In reply to]

On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > >
> > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
> >
> > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
> >
> > "Derived works have to be under the same license"
> >
> > where the rest is just really fluff.
> >
> > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
> > what copyright law defines.
> >
> > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you
> > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work",
> > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the
> > RIAA is your best buddy.
> >
> > And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_
> > lines" is exactly that total disaster.
> >
> > We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by
> > copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and
> > too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible
> > situation we could ever be in.
> >
> > The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the
> > sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.
>
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
> I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
> explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
> (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
> does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
> hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
> are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
> their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.
>
> This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
> doing legal things or not.
>
> Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
> sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
> teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
> your teacher hat once a month ? :-)

I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
them somehow.

So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear
on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers
will never get any support from us? That would make things crystal clear.

Greetings,
Rafael

--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads