Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Hi :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's > what copyright law defines. Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work. > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the > RIAA is your best buddy. I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be made. I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works, enforce distribution of source code etc. and this by law. The proposed changes do not impose anything, they just make things technically a little more complicated for some, and they can be trivially circumvented if one desires. Maybe not a good idea, but still no excuse for the sort of atrocious bigotry some people are exhibiting here. I do not mean to say this is a good thing, some of the arguments advanced here make me much less enthusiastic as at the beginning. As I said in my first post, and seemed to be promptly ignored, this can only by any use at all if it persuades vendors to provide the essential information about their products without hurting users too much, or further alienating vendors. All this is of course highly debatable, and needs discussing properly, if people are able to communicate in a civil manner that is. Before any fanatic ranting saying that people inducing slight complications are freedom hating Nazis who should be burned at the stake, please contrast this trivial complication with the extremely difficult work that must be done by someone wanting to write a driver when a vendor doesn't provide adequate documentation. It might be noted that in some countries it is quite illegal not to provide documentation for a product, just as it is illegal to limit a product to only work with a specific vendors merchandise when said product is in essence generic. This is the case in France, where these laws are simply ignored by corporations. A large French NFP sued HP last week about them not allowing their PCs to be sold without Windows, so we may finally start to get these laws applied. I have written the NFP to suggest that if the case does not extend to missing hardware documentation, maybe another case would be in order. In the past the people at this NFP have been very civil and cooperative with me. > And that is why it would be WRONG to think that we have the absolute right > to say "that is illegal". It's simply not our place to make that > judgement. When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the > content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions > doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_. I have seen nobody with the ponce to judge people or try to have control over them when arguing for these mods. I think all that has been said has been people trying to interpret the law, it's quite possible they got it wrong. Not that I can blame them, law is a not simple, and I can see people on both "sides" of the argument not getting things quite right here. I would note however that I personally find it distasteful to call people "wrong" rather than respectfully disagreeing with them. > So don't go talking about how we should twist peoples arms and force them > to be open source of free software. Instead, BE HAPPY that people can take > advantage of "loopholes" in copyright protections and can legally do > things that you as the copyright owner might not like. Because those > "loopholes" are in the end what protects YOU. I admit I should not have used the phrase "twist arm", I meant it in an entirely jocular sense, it is a phrase I never employ usually. Of course it is a mistake I regret. The word "persuade" would have been a much better choice. As I hope I clearly explained above, it wasn't suggested to "force" anybody to do anything. Although I don't appreciate insult or aggressively, I choose to ignore it in order to try and advance a reasonable discussion. I will not stand here and let you tell me what to and not to do however. It also makes you seem a bit hypocritical in a discussion where you are claiming to be arguing for "freedom". Love, Karderio. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Hi :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: But the point is, derived work is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's what copyright law defines. Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work. And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you push the definition of derived work to anything that touches our work, you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the RIAA is your best buddy. I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be made. I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works, enforce distribution of source code etc. and this by law. The proposed changes do not impose anything, they just make things technically a little more complicated for some, and they can be trivially circumvented if one desires. Maybe not a good idea, but still no excuse for the sort of atrocious bigotry some people are exhibiting here. I do not mean to say this is a good thing, some of the arguments advanced here make me much less enthusiastic as at the beginning. As I said in my first post, and seemed to be promptly ignored, this can only by any use at all if it persuades vendors to provide the essential information about their products without hurting users too much, or further alienating vendors. All this is of course highly debatable, and needs discussing properly, if people are able to communicate in a civil manner that is. Before any fanatic ranting saying that people inducing slight complications are freedom hating Nazis who should be burned at the stake, please contrast this trivial complication with the extremely difficult work that must be done by someone wanting to write a driver when a vendor doesn't provide adequate documentation. It might be noted that in some countries it is quite illegal not to provide documentation for a product, just as it is illegal to limit a product to only work with a specific vendors merchandise when said product is in essence generic. This is the case in France, where these laws are simply ignored by corporations. A large French NFP sued HP last week about them not allowing their PCs to be sold without Windows, so we may finally start to get these laws applied. I have written the NFP to suggest that if the case does not extend to missing hardware documentation, maybe another case would be in order. In the past the people at this NFP have been very civil and cooperative with me. And that is why it would be WRONG to think that we have the absolute right to say that is illegal. It's simply not our place to make that judgement. When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_. I have seen nobody with the ponce to judge people or try to have control over them when arguing for these mods. I think all that has been said has been people trying to interpret the law, it's quite possible they got it wrong. Not that I can blame them, law is a not simple, and I can see people on both sides of the argument not getting things quite right here. I would note however that I personally find it distasteful to call people wrong rather than respectfully disagreeing with them. So don't go talking about how we should twist peoples arms and force them to be open source of free software. Instead, BE HAPPY that people can take advantage of loopholes in copyright protections and can legally do things that you as the copyright owner might not like. Because those loopholes are in the end what protects YOU. I admit I should not have used the phrase twist arm, I meant it in an entirely jocular sense, it is a phrase I never employ usually. Of course it is a mistake I regret. The word persuade would have been a much better choice. As I hope I clearly explained above, it wasn't suggested to force anybody to do anything. Although I don't appreciate insult or aggressively, I choose to ignore it in order to try and advance a reasonable discussion. I will not stand here and let you tell me what to and not to do however. It also makes you seem a bit hypocritical in a discussion where you are claiming to be arguing for freedom. Love, Karderio. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Re :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to > > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. > > I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software > community" is for. > > We're "open source" and we're not a religion. In the spirit of mutual understanding, I will not say that I do not care "what you are for", despite your at least very unfriendly reply. You are a person, I care about you, no matter how hard that can be. To be as blatantly frank with you as you are with me, I will say I personally do not care much for open source. I do not see the point of having source code if it's owner imposes the same arbitrary restrictions on my use of it as they can on binary, I want more guarantees than that. > We don't "twist peoples arms". I didn't suggest that you twist peoples arms, I was talking about my imaginary "free software community" ;) > We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them > participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to > believe in the GPL or our ideals. That seems great, this is also one of the things I aspire to. I was simply suggesting that perhaps a minor compromise to this principle may be in order, which is of course debatable. > In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one unified thing to begin with. I'm sure they're not, I don't really see how that would work to be honest. > We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things > in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage > it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most > particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair > use". As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose certain restrictions and come with certain obligations. In what is the suggestion for kernel modules fundamentally different from what you already require of your users ? > That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly > meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with. Precisely. A community grants users the right to an open source kernel, why should certain vendors take away from this freedom by providing binary only drivers because they don't agree with that community ? > Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it > out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So > arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result > might be worth it. It's still bad. That of course was neither suggested nor implied by what I said, at least not intentionally. > And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. > > It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to > just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they > want, that "information freedom" will follow. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I would even go to as far as encouraging it in a discussion. If I may however, I think it is no more effort to disagree respectfully, rather than being sarcastic, insulting and using words that could be interpreted as downright aggressive. Of course "freedom of information" could never hold a candle to peoples freedom, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. There is a big difference between "reasonable measures" and "fighting", I don't see where you got that from. I think that the basic problem for which we are seeking a solution is that binary drivers do not permit people to "do what they want", which by your own definition, shows that they take away from "_peoples_ freedom". > It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other > viewpoints. I certainly hope I didn't seem to suggest anything like that, you appear to be ranting at me because of your disagreements with some third party. Is "software as a religion" some sort of "joke religion" like Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism ? Love, Karderio. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Hi :o) Linus Torvalds wrote : > The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the > exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell > people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the > DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly > granted by copyright law. > > Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical? > > So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not > surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked > two-facedness about this. The comparison of what is being suggested for kernel modules to the actions of the RIAA doesn't seem very fitting. If anything is being pushed, and anybody is being told what to do, it seems to be pushing for "openness" and telling corporations to provide important information about their products. The RIAA seems to be doing the opposite, enforcing total control over what they release. Apparently, the GPL itself is a compromise, in order to assure freedom of information in a non-ideal world. The GPL combats copyright law with copyright law, it's paradoxical but not hypocritical, and what is being suggested here for kernel modules seems analog. To call people who are struggling for freedom with comparatively few resources "two faced" or "hypocritical" when they must compromise on their principles doesn't seem all that fair. If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I'm generally not at all combative, and would generally argue for leaving people free to do as they wish. In this case I think the issue, the freedom of information, is rather an important one, and within reason measures should be taken to defend it. Love, Karderio. "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Hi :o) Linus Torvalds wrote : The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law. Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical? So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked two-facedness about this. The comparison of what is being suggested for kernel modules to the actions of the RIAA doesn't seem very fitting. If anything is being pushed, and anybody is being told what to do, it seems to be pushing for openness and telling corporations to provide important information about their products. The RIAA seems to be doing the opposite, enforcing total control over what they release. Apparently, the GPL itself is a compromise, in order to assure freedom of information in a non-ideal world. The GPL combats copyright law with copyright law, it's paradoxical but not hypocritical, and what is being suggested here for kernel modules seems analog. To call people who are struggling for freedom with comparatively few resources two faced or hypocritical when they must compromise on their principles doesn't seem all that fair. If the free software community has the clout to twist vendor's arms to get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I'm generally not at all combative, and would generally argue for leaving people free to do as they wish. In this case I think the issue, the freedom of information, is rather an important one, and within reason measures should be taken to defend it. Love, Karderio. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Re :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: If the free software community has the clout to twist vendor's arms to get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary free software community is for. We're open source and we're not a religion. In the spirit of mutual understanding, I will not say that I do not care what you are for, despite your at least very unfriendly reply. You are a person, I care about you, no matter how hard that can be. To be as blatantly frank with you as you are with me, I will say I personally do not care much for open source. I do not see the point of having source code if it's owner imposes the same arbitrary restrictions on my use of it as they can on binary, I want more guarantees than that. We don't twist peoples arms. I didn't suggest that you twist peoples arms, I was talking about my imaginary free software community ;) We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to believe in the GPL or our ideals. That seems great, this is also one of the things I aspire to. I was simply suggesting that perhaps a minor compromise to this principle may be in order, which is of course debatable. In fact, our ideals aren't even one unified thing to begin with. I'm sure they're not, I don't really see how that would work to be honest. We also don't try to pervert copyright into a you have to _use_ things in a certain way. We don't think fair use is a bad thing. We encourage it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of fair use. As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose certain restrictions and come with certain obligations. In what is the suggestion for kernel modules fundamentally different from what you already require of your users ? That, btw, is what freedom and rights are all about. It's obly meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with. Precisely. A community grants users the right to an open source kernel, why should certain vendors take away from this freedom by providing binary only drivers because they don't agree with that community ? Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result might be worth it. It's still bad. That of course was neither suggested nor implied by what I said, at least not intentionally. And btw, that information freedom thing you talked about is just so much blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor is it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they want, that information freedom will follow. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I would even go to as far as encouraging it in a discussion. If I may however, I think it is no more effort to disagree respectfully, rather than being sarcastic, insulting and using words that could be interpreted as downright aggressive. Of course freedom of information could never hold a candle to peoples freedom, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. There is a big difference between reasonable measures and fighting, I don't see where you got that from. I think that the basic problem for which we are seeking a solution is that binary drivers do not permit people to do what they want, which by your own definition, shows that they take away from _peoples_ freedom. It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other viewpoints. I certainly hope I didn't seem to suggest anything like that, you appear to be ranting at me because of your disagreements with some third party. Is software as a religion some sort of joke religion like Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism ? Love, Karderio. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
