Re: FC4 or FC5

On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 01:33, Craig White wrote:

The simple fact is that Linux is GPL, has always been and will always
be. If you want to opt out of GPL and use open source, BSD is most
likely your best option.

Actually it is fairly ambiguous as to whether kernel modules
must be GPL'd or not. In the early days Linus was quoted as
saying that separate code that used the kernel interfaces did
not fall under the GPL - something I'm quite sure boosted the
early acceptance of Linux since it made the possibility
of vendor-provided drivers seem more likely. More recently
he has been seen waffling about this issue and in any
case his refusal to freeze an API has made it unattractive
for vendors to try to keep up with binary drivers that
have to be rebuilt for every version.

But, with less restricted code whatever the original authors
want to publish remains free and available regardless of what
anyone else does with it. The only net result of the GPL
is a reduction in the available choices. Someone can't add
a proprietary improvement and sell it for the incremental
difference. Which means I don't have the option to buy that.
----
dude - there's even less device drivers available for BSD than for
Linux. There isn't any 'taint' from GPL license on BSD. That's such a
huge hole in your argument that it renders your argument pointless.
----

My G4 powerbook is starting to show its age, but I don't recall
it missing any device drivers - yet there are reasons to think
it contains some amount of BSD licensed code.

Your opinions suggest that people are too stupid to realize that they
are contributing unintentionally to an evil code base...GPL license code
base.

I don't think a lot of people understand the effect demonstrated
by the RIPEM example. I don't think a lot of people understand
the potential for new patent cases to hopelessly tie up any GPL
code in the same 'work as a whole'.

Companies and people who contribute to the GPL code base are
undoubtedly choosing with intent to do so.

Some are, of course.

At least you're not alone in
your opinion...Steve Balmer would wholeheartedly agree with you.

The history of objective-C validates that opinion. And is
counted by some as a victory for the GPL. If I were Steve
Balmer I'd make an effort to publicize how that worked out.


Anyone who remembers the BSD TCP/IP code stack in Windows NT knows why
some people prefer GPL license over BSD type licenses...it absolutely
prevents the 'embrace, extend, extinguish' of donated code making its
way into proprietary software.

Beg to differ here. Microsoft originally wrote their own code
and anyone who had to co-exist on a LAN with those early
products (like the win95 version that got the retry timer
backwards and increased the rate instead of backing off on
congested networks)
----
I specifically said Windows NT (NOT Win95, etc.) what are you
disagreeing with?

NT was still horribly broken, at least until service pack 6a,
well into win2k's lifetime. Just guessing, but that's probably
when the code was updated to correspond to the bsd reference.

And where patents are involved the slowdown will be for the
life of the patent - or until someone contributes it to the
public.
----
umm...patents and licensing are different topics altogether.

They aren't when one of the licenses says that the 'work
as a whole' must be distributed under that same license
with no additional restrictions. If the patent holder
insists on additional restrictions (which is his right and
would be the usual case), then no part of a 'work as a whole'
using that technology may be under the GPL.

I see companies like Dell that created dkms which enables them to put
out a dynamically self-updating device driver that upgrades itself with
each new kernel release. I see companies like Nvidia putting out drivers
for their hardware. Things are continually improving.

Nvidia claims that their contracts with the chip vendors prohibits
them from releasing details or a GPL'd driver. If it is possible
to put a license-agnostic layer between components that the
FSF can't threaten with their interpretations of 'work as a whole'
and without a big performance hit, the issue might go away.

I note without much surprise that Apple doesn't contribute the device
drivers that they have developed back to the BSD community.

They may have the same problem as Nvidia in terms of contracts
with their hardware suppliers. Or it may just be their choice.
I don't have a problem with companies making their own choices
about what is best for them as long as that company doesn't
have monopoly control over the market.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    ... arguing /in favor of/ any kind of stable module API is asking for it. ... drivers are cut off from the tree regardless of their licensing terms. ... Any open-source license not compatible with the GPL. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Mixing with copyleft (GPL) code
    ... other code that is also 2-clause BSD, public domain, etc. ... Foomaticizer, as a whole, must be licensed under GPL, because Qt is GPL. ... The code, being my own and therefore free to license as I wish, is BSD, ...
    (comp.software.licensing)
  • Re: FreeBSD copyrighted?
    ... >>everything were licensed under the GPL. ... That's true and I also usually prefer the BSD license. ... include gcc. ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • RE: Open source quiry
    ... The FreeBSD license allows reuse of the source code. ... And if so how does one go about getting the GPL ... The BSD license allows commercial reuse of the code with no ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: BSD legal question
    ... >> work under GPL ... Generally, since it is the author who selects the license, if the author ... > distribute a set of patches to a GPL program under the BSD ... The GPL license on the combined work would not alter ...
    (freebsd-questions)