-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Moles wrote:
>> I've also read about a LiveCD distribution that provided 3D >> proprietary drivers out of the box for most hardware and >> that the GNU people attacked, and obliged to retract. That >> was because a distribution doesn't have the right to >> provide closed-source drivers in a GNU environment, and it >> is only possible if it is the user's *OWN PERSONAL* choice >> outside the GNU framework to do so. (I hope you understand >> what I try to explain, I'm no specialist in the area) > > There's simply no way this is true; period. I imagine there are > many more details being left out--perhaps you could provide some links > to reports or documentation that led you to believe this? > > What is possible, however, is that the providers of the proprietary > drivers do not allow distribution of their code in a bundled way > without some kind of special permission... > Jeremy, because you are not informed you do not believe something, it doesn't mean it is not true. Unfortunately, this is true. The distro he mentions as having to be withdrawn is Kororaa (http://kororaa.org/) - the case was widely publicised. The problem is in Linux kernel and GPL covering it. Because the binary modules for Nvidia and ATI cards required to get meaningful 3D support have to be built with kernel symbols, they become covered by GPL too. However, then you have to provide source code, as required by GPL, if you decide to distribute this. That is impossible, because the source code for the driver is not available. This causes you infringe the kernel GPL license if you distribute the system with the compiled modules. Linus was heard saying that there may be an exception made for these, but there is no such exception in GPL right now and there are plenty of militant kernel developers who will waste no time to sue you (plenty of examples online, most recent with Skype). So distribution of binary drivers is a legal minefield nobody will go into. This issue is usually worked around by "home compiling" drivers by the user, as mentioned by Zoltán - either by the proprietary installers provided by the card vendors or by using the dkms framework by the distros. The binary module is never distributed, only created on demand, so the GPL doesn't get triggered (the driver itself is not GPLed, of course). This is a problem for LiveCD distros, of course - while it is conceivable that the driver gets compiled on every boot or cached compiled on the target system, it is not very practical ... The only widely available cards that do not have this issue are Intel GPUs. Of course, their performance does suck too. A pity, though - I think that this is a clear case where ideology trumps genuinely useful thing. Some kernel developers even want to "outlaw" binary-only drivers outright by making it impossible to legally make them, thinking that this will force vendors to open source their drivers. This coupled with another issue of perception that good 3D support is needed only for games and nobody cares about those causes that these issues do not get much consideration when changes are made within the kernel. Personally, I think it will just make the vendors for crucial hardware (like graphic cards) go away because Linux will not be worth the trouble for them - desktop Linux is simply not a market for them yet (just look at the abysmal quality of ATI drivers ...). Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFILgQrn11XseNj94gRAhSmAJ0ZkBfHWfTAZ7ztk/G8BkWSVZY7awCfdmkY RU+7cjxwbEdCrI4TQIHu3ss= =oAk1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
