On Wednesday 20 December 2006 09:32, Tim Schmidt wrote: > On 12/20/06, Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm sure most of you saw the slashdot story about Greg K-H > > proposing a kernel patch that would eliminate non-GPL drivers, > > followed by a discussion about how that would impact developers, > > followed by an apology. Well, apparently, the discussion is > > continuing, I'm told, and there has even been mention of the OHF > > (pointing to the Open Graphics wiki). If there's someone on this > > list who is also on LKML, it might be useful for us to keep tabs on > > this as well as participate a bit in the discussion. > > Indeed. I'm subscribed to LKML and just finished the thread... > mostly pseudo-legal bickering about Fair Use (as laid out by U.S. > copyright law) and the DMCA (again, U.S. law - though spreading > elsewhere). I haven't seen glaring mistakes yet uncorrected, or any > obvious chances to plug the project more so than has already been > done. > > As a summary, Linus's (and Ted's) position is a fair one: Fair Use > allows use of works without the permission of the author(s) for > purposes the author(s) may not agree with. Applying a technical > measure to prevent such uses triggers the DMCA - bad. Also, in order > for the GPL to prohibit the distribution of binary-only kernel > modules, they must be derived works... the definition of which, the > fog of Fair Use tend to make fuzzy. In other words, in order to > prevent the distribution of binary-only kernel modules, we need a > court case. Possibly several.
Legal definitions aside for a moment, I think the question is what constitutes "use". Does nVidia "use" the kernel when they create a binary module for it? Or are they extending and deriving from it? Software freedom dictates that anyone can use in any way, copyleft limits extending and deriving. To muddle the waters, Fair Use isn't about using at all, it's an exception to the distribution prohibition that copyright law imposes. It's interesting to look at Tivoisation in this light. If Tivo builds hardware running Linux and some proprietary software on top, are they a user or a redistributor? From Linus' point of view they are apparently users using Linux to build a product, and therefore he opposes the anti-Tivoisation clause in GPLv3. From the point of view of the hacker trying to modify his Tivo box, Tivo is a redistributor, _he_ is the user, and _he_ should have freedom to use it in any way. But he doesn't, due to the DRM they put into the box. It's smack in the middle of the open source/free software rift. Free software has always been about consumer rights. Open source is about software quality and a cooperative development process. These are orthogonal goals. From the point of view of open source then, binary modules are only a problem in so far that they change the quality of the rest of the kernel (security issues) and its cooperative development process (dependency on the (unwilling) vendor to fix things, others can't contribute). From the point of view of free software, binary modules are a problem in that they infringe upon the consumer's rights. Many of the same issues crop up when you start thinking about what open hardware should be. Lourens
pgp40bKTOFhQk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
