The linux-libre project[1] was started to remove nonfree code from the
linux kernel. I'm wondering why it was allowed in in the first place.
cause life is life and the world revolves around that green paper stuff....
(money in case your not in the USA or have seen a recent bill which is getting
more and more colorful these days)
Linux is licensed under the GPL, and the FSF and Linus have both stated
that kernel modules are a derivative work, and therefore must be
GPL'ed.[2] The matter of whether the GPL is actually legally
enforceable in this situation apparently has not been settled, but the
intent of the license is clear[3]
and therefore distributing nonfree
linux modules is, if nothing else, immoral.
imoral to what end.... if linux didnt work with say any nvidia *AND* ATI is that
cost something linux could get over?
both nvidia and ATI spend a huge chunk of $$ to outdo the other, if that is lost
by someone releasing the source code whats the cost of that? can nvidia and ati
exist without that competition, isnt that competition something that any "free"
world would celebrate having, its not always about getting everything for
nothing, its about being able to pick nvidia or ati depending on what you want!
This looks to me like a symptom of the departure from the Free Software
movement in favor of Open Source. Are the short term practical benefits
of accepting nonfree code really worth the loss of freedoms that
entails?
can linux get really established without hardware support?
is there really a cost to not having the source code to the ATI and nvidia video
drivers.... maybe but maybe not!
JUST one side and just my opinion
Richard Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
