Marcel Mourguiart schrieb: > first of all: What i never says is that SUSE must put binary drivers > together with the kernel, i understand why they can't do that and I'm > pretty > agree with that too, i just saying they can put it in the same server, > which > according to me is not against GPL.
thats _your_ according - but not Novells. there are already a few statements here on the list from Novell / Suse showing a) the point of view of Novell / Suse and b) saying that they are on working for some more userfriendly ways together with developer and hardware vendors ( in this case with nVidia, as I remember ). > > now answering yours .. questions ? > > 1. Because I'm a suser since 6 years know, i like suse and i think is the > best distro out there. > > 2. I have read some of those discussions and i agree to don't put binary > drivers together with the kernel source, but put it in the same server is > just something completely different again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. so if they do, there should no legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts it is.) > > 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to > me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll > desagree. OK then - you said that often. we have read it. we accept that. now accept that other people think another way. > > If i'm wrong, then suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, > ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers have the > kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same > directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = > distribution" is new to me. > ok, a little more theorie then: LAW works on the way, that there must be soneone has to get to the courts when he think someone or something hit his licence. this way it needs that _every_ holder of the licince has to "fight" against every violation. as you mid see: that is time consuming, money consuming. but thats the way LAW works. not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist about that topic. while some developers accept that there are closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. "same server = distro": the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. it doesn't matter if you build both from source, or only one of source and offer the other only as binary or both binary or ony other combination. and it doesn't matter how to grand the access - on a media like CD / DVD or via internet etc. listing distros that offers closed-source-drivers tha way you said: as already written here, it doesn't matter if others are doing so. and it even doesn't matter if it is userfriendly or unfriendly. as someone from the developers on the kernel.org-mailinglist has written some times ago: if that means that there will be no big step for linux to the desktop for the mass then it will so. they don't fight against a company in redmond, but for a free and open sourced alternative operation system. *thats* why so many use linux. not only to have an alternative to windows. if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what you have to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same the other way to other people and other companys that don't have your view. I think thats fair. and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some time so that others can work on it. ). so far, best regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
