* Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? @ 2002-12-31 3:57 Hell.Surfers 2002-12-31 6:55 ` David Schwartz ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Hell.Surfers @ 2002-12-31 3:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel, rms Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the community. Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 3:57 Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Hell.Surfers @ 2002-12-31 6:55 ` David Schwartz 2002-12-31 10:51 ` Andrew Walrond ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2002-12-31 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:57:06 +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote: To respond first to your subject, GPL'd code is given to everyone to do what they wish with, subject to certain very specific and narrow limitations. >Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals >from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open >source its work on drivers, What type of "pact" are you talking about? >there is a clear difference between their use of >GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. I presume you're talking about the inclusion of GPL'd header files into non-GPL'd code that is then distributed without source code? IMO, if the header file only includes things like structs and thin macros, that's insufficient to consider the compilation a derived work. You are welcome to argue for stronger and stronger copyright law enforcement and narrower and narrower constructions of fair use and first sale doctrines. However, IMO, it would be the stupidest possible thing the open source community could ever do. >You cannot expect embedded >kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$ >users, but in the long run it destroys the community. I don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit from GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to 'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base. Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 3:57 Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Hell.Surfers 2002-12-31 6:55 ` David Schwartz @ 2002-12-31 10:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2002-12-31 12:05 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-01 16:45 ` Rik van Riel 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2002-12-31 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel I hate feeding lawyers NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards, so I buy and use their hardware. Anybody else read Peter Hamiltons Misspent Youth yet ? Really quite interesting... But we've all done this argument to death hundreds of times, and linux-kernel doesn't care! While we're so off topic, Happy New Year to all fellow gnu/linux hackers! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 10:51 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2002-12-31 12:05 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-12-31 12:19 ` John Bradford 2002-12-31 14:14 ` Andrew Walrond 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Xavier Bestel @ 2002-12-31 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Le mar 31/12/2002 à 11:51, Andrew Walrond a écrit : > I hate feeding lawyers > NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards, ?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's very new to me, could you provide a link ? Xav ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:05 ` Xavier Bestel @ 2002-12-31 12:19 ` John Bradford 2002-12-31 14:22 ` Jochen Friedrich 2002-12-31 14:14 ` Andrew Walrond 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2002-12-31 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Xavier Bestel; +Cc: andrew, linux-kernel > > I hate feeding lawyers > > NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards, > > ?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's > very new to me, could you provide a link ? Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart from an X86 machine available? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:19 ` John Bradford @ 2002-12-31 14:22 ` Jochen Friedrich 2002-12-31 14:31 ` John Bradford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-12-31 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: Xavier Bestel, andrew, linux-kernel Hi John, > Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart > from an X86 machine available? Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enought. There are lots of PCI graphics cards available, which still only work in an X86 (and in most cases Alpha) machines, although there is an open source driver. The reason is that they need the initialisation code in their PCI BIOS, which is X86, binary code. Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code. --jochen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 14:22 ` Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-12-31 14:31 ` John Bradford 2003-01-01 19:28 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2002-12-31 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jochen Friedrich; +Cc: xavier.bestel, andrew, linux-kernel > > Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart > > from an X86 machine available? > > Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enought. There are lots of PCI graphics > cards available, which still only work in an X86 (and in most cases Alpha) > machines, although there is an open source driver. The reason is that they > need the initialisation code in their PCI BIOS, which is X86, binary > code. Sorry, I didn't really explain what I meant very well. I realise that it's not just a case of getting the driver to compile on other architectures, what I meant was that if the driver is open source then anybody is free to work on the support for non-X86 boxes. If it's closed source, then only the manufacturer can work on it. > Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code. That's interesting, I didn't know that. How complete is it? Does it just emulate a subset of X86 instructions that are enough for 90% of initialisation code? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 14:31 ` John Bradford @ 2003-01-01 19:28 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-01-01 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: Jochen Friedrich, xavier.bestel, andrew, linux-kernel John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> writes: > > Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code. > > That's interesting, I didn't know that. How complete is it? Does it > just emulate a subset of X86 instructions that are enough for 90% of > initialisation code? AFAIK it only emulates 16-bit real mode, which is what the bios code is. I've never seen a card that failed to work because of this. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:05 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-12-31 12:19 ` John Bradford @ 2002-12-31 14:14 ` Andrew Walrond 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2002-12-31 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Xavier Bestel; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List I'll rephrase Nvidia produce drivers *for use with* gnu/linux/xfree systems But then you knew what I meant didn't you? Or are you a lawyer? ;) Xavier Bestel wrote: > Le mar 31/12/2002 à 11:51, Andrew Walrond a écrit : > >>I hate feeding lawyers >>NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards, > > > ?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's > very new to me, could you provide a link ? > > Xav > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 3:57 Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Hell.Surfers 2002-12-31 6:55 ` David Schwartz 2002-12-31 10:51 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford ` (2 more replies) 2003-01-01 16:45 ` Rik van Riel 3 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-12-31 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hell.Surfers; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote: > Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that > steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL > and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between > their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot > expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a > vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the > community. > > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one... Well let's see: You have no money to hire lawyers. You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive. Are you a customer of Nvidia? If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD! If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc. Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope. Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting process", it created more grey than clarity. Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what you think, feel, or care. Now what is not clear? If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware which will run on Linux with any usability. Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past, current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to hurd all togather to agree on a single point? So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is defined as "GPL patch"? Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module. Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of linking the two permanetly. Time for bed, ranting is over ... Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford 2002-12-31 15:26 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 15:11 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2002-12-31 22:36 ` David Schwartz 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutherford @ 2002-12-31 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel I doubt this would 'destroy the community'... Do I like it? Nope. But here is the way I look at it... Nvidia provides the driver, and it works. it means I can use their cards in Linux. the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$ drivers. After all, you do get the kernel module source code.... Another thing you must realise is that these companies want to stay in buisness and just the fact that Nvidia has a linux driver probably torques m$ off as it is they do not want to upset this company, lets face it, they are barbaric and they are cabable of bringing hardware makers to their knees if they wanted to. They even have a *BSD driver now.... I like Nvidia, because they provide me with a driver that I can use, and it works. I also recall reading that they have code in their driver(s) that belongs to a third party, making it hard to release the source to the driver without upsetting the third party. perhaps one day, they will be able to. I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, we need to focus on the companies that give us NOTHING. end of rant :) Andre Hedrick wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote: > > > Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that > > steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL > > and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between > > their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot > > expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a > > vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the > > community. > > > > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one... > > Well let's see: > > You have no money to hire lawyers. > You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive. > > Are you a customer of Nvidia? > If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD! > If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which > is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc. > > Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to > say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there > are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have > a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope. > > Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it > does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting > process", it created more grey than clarity. > > Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source > modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what > you think, feel, or care. > > Now what is not clear? > > If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or > loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old > dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware > which will run on Linux with any usability. > > Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past, > current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to > hurd all togather to agree on a single point? > > So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the > license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a > file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is > defined as "GPL patch"? > > Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side > of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from > being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who > think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly > linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module. > > Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a > closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from > above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of > linking the two permanetly. > > Time for bed, ranting is over ... > > Cheers, > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Regards, Mark Rutherford mark@justirc.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford @ 2002-12-31 15:26 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 15:36 ` Mark Rutherford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2002-12-31 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Rutherford; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote: > the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$ > drivers. > After all, you do get the kernel module source code.... No you do not. You get source to the code that shims a big binary object file into whatever kernel you compile against. > I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, > we need to focus on the companies that give us NOTHING. they havnt given us anything. > end of rant :) regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 15:26 ` Paul Jakma @ 2002-12-31 15:36 ` Mark Rutherford 2002-12-31 15:44 ` Paul Jakma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutherford @ 2002-12-31 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: linux-kernel Paul Jakma wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote: > > > the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$ > > drivers. > > After all, you do get the kernel module source code.... > > No you do not. > > You get source to the code that shims a big binary object file into > whatever kernel you compile against. I stand corrected here... (silence) > > > > I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, > > we need to focus on the companies that give us NOTHING. > > they havnt given us anything. well, change 'us' to 'Linux users' why? well we can use our expensive hardware. to some, thats all that matters. personally, I would like to see the code :) > > > end of rant :) > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra > paulj@alphyra.ie > Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Regards, Mark Rutherford mark@justirc.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 15:36 ` Mark Rutherford @ 2002-12-31 15:44 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 17:05 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-01 19:35 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2002-12-31 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Rutherford; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote: > well, change 'us' to 'Linux users' > why? well we can use our expensive hardware. "what you get for christmas?" "a lump of coal" at least you get /something/. however, you didnt get what counts, programming info for the card. PS: do you think Linux PPC or Alpha users are happy that NVidia provide drivers? > to some, thats all that matters. > personally, I would like to see the code :) regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 15:44 ` Paul Jakma @ 2002-12-31 17:05 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-01 19:35 ` Måns Rullgård 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2002-12-31 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma, Mark Rutherford; +Cc: linux-kernel Paul Jakma wrote > "what you get for christmas?" > > "a lump of coal" > > at least you get /something/. however, you didnt get what counts, > programming info for the card. I, and many other Linux users, do not consider nVidia's drivers to be "a lump of coal." What "counts" is being able to use my hardware effectively. Closed-source drivers may not be ideal, but few things in life are. Even the conservative Debian distribution (which I use) has the nVidia drivers available in the distribution. In order of preference (for me): 1) High-quality drivers with open source 2) High-quality drivers with closed source 3) Poor-quality drivers with open source 4) Poor-quality drivers with closed source Out of four possibilities, we're getting the next-to-best thing. Certainly, I'd *like* to have the specs for nVidia's cards -- but given competition between nVidia and ATI, I don't see that happening. One advantage nVidia has (small as it may be) is high-quality drivers for Linux; it's one reason my Linux systems have TNT2 and GeForce 4 cards installed. Note that my Windows boxes run ATI cards; I'm not an nVidia shill. One of Linux's historical weaknesses (when compared to the competition) is video support. While I urge nVidia to open their specifications (and in the end think it would be in their best interest), I'm also very pleased that they provide high-performance drivers for free (as in beer). ..Scott -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 15:44 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 17:05 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-01 19:35 ` Måns Rullgård 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-01-01 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Paul Jakma <paulj@alphyra.ie> writes: > PS: do you think Linux PPC or Alpha users are happy that NVidia > provide drivers? Being an Alpha user, I can assure you that for me nvidia's drivers are worth nothing. Even if they did work, I would want the complete specs for the chip. There's usually something you can do with them. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford @ 2002-12-31 15:11 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2002-12-31 22:36 ` David Schwartz 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Halasa @ 2002-12-31 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes: > Are you a customer of Nvidia? > If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD! Which country has such weird copyright laws? > If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which > is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc. I don't think we have LGPL code in the kernel, but of course I can be wrong here. Anyway, NVidia has binary driver being a kernel component and XFree86 driver. While XFree86 driver may or may not be subject to X11 license, the kernel part (an object file which is then linked to a kernel module glue code) does not seem to be derived from kernel code. > Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to > say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Still, LGPL has nothing to do with it. The kernel code is licensed under version 2 of GPL (or maybe later version, but there isn't any). Having or not having money has nothing to do with it either. > Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source > modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what > you think, feel, or care. Kernel behaviour is not related to legal issues. > If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or > loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old > dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware > which will run on Linux with any usability. Forget it. The kernel itselt can't force anyone to do anything. That is the license that matters. BTW: Of course, vendors are free to produce drivers for their hardware. Have you seen such a closed-source driver which was working correctly? I haven't. > So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the > license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a > file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is > defined as "GPL patch"? IANAL, but I'd assume a patch doesn't change the license for a product (a file etc), unless stated otherwise. > Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side > of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from > being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". A module has to be linked when it's loaded. But it, of course, doesn't matter - the GPL doesn't prevent you from linking GPL code to anything you want, unless you want to distribute such a beast. -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford 2002-12-31 15:11 ` Krzysztof Halasa @ 2002-12-31 22:36 ` David Schwartz 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2002-12-31 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel >Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it >does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting >process", it created more grey than clarity. Nothing would stop someone from distributing a kernel that did not reject those drivers. The GPL doesn't permit you to add additional restrictions to it, so you can't add a clause prohibiting such distribution. >Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source >modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what >you think, feel, or care. There would just be a set of patches to bypass that rejection. Every major distribution would distribute kernels with those patches. You can't GPL code and at the same time control how it is used. As I argued in my previous post, it would be suicidal for any advocate of open source to attempt to broaden the scope of what constitutes a 'derived work' or narrow the scope of fair use or first sale type doctrines. Hey, we're almost back on topic for this list. Happy new year. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2002-12-31 3:57 Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Hell.Surfers ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-01 16:45 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-01 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hell.Surfers; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote: > Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals > from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and Ohhhh, a conspiracy theory. I like conspiracy theories. Do tell, what exactly is the conspiracy here and who are the parties involved ? > open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between > their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot > expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a > vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the > community. Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work needs to be GPL. However, if the new work is NOT a derivative of a GPL work, the author of that new work gets to choose the license freely. The border gets determined by inclusion of a copyrightable piece of GPL code. Really small fragments of code and simple defines aren't copyrightable, just like you can't copyright a single musical note, but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines? what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license. Feel free to get upset or eat your boots at any time you want, it's not going to change copyright law. cheers, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-01 16:45 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote: > Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL > applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a > "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work > needs to be GPL. and: > but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple > declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines? > what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the > standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a > derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license. It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL. The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work. So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia driver is technically in material breach of GPL. You seem to be basing your opinion on: "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel" How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces. However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence? > Rik regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: Programmers do it bit by bit. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang 2003-01-02 1:29 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2003-01-02 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel?????? luckly that's not how things actually work. David Lang On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote: > Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) > From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie> > To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> > Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source > drivers? > > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL > > applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a > > "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work > > needs to be GPL. > > and: > > > but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple > > declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines? > > what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the > > standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a > > derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license. > > It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to > consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL. > > The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI > device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel > makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ > subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of > code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work. > > So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia > driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia > driver is technically in material breach of GPL. > > You seem to be basing your opinion on: > > "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into > the Linux kernel" > > How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? > > I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about > binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces. > However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can > this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, > then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence? > > > Rik > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A > warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st > Fortune: > Programmers do it bit by bit. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-02 1:29 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:21 ` David Lang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Lang; +Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote: > well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs > use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel?????? libc neednt neccessarily use the kernel headers, it needs to use only headers that are compatible. Also, though it might use kernel headers, the headers it provides for other programmes to be compiled against it are not kernel headers. further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be considered to fall within this exemption. > luckly that's not how things actually work. unfortunately, its not at all clear. > David Lang regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:29 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 1:21 ` David Lang 2003-01-02 1:38 ` Paul Jakma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2003-01-02 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote: > > > well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs > > use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel?????? > > libc neednt neccessarily use the kernel headers, it needs to use only > headers that are compatible. Also, though it might use kernel headers, > the headers it provides for other programmes to be compiled against it > are not kernel headers. > > further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system > calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be > considered to fall within this exemption. this is exactly the reasoning that nvidia uses to justify their use of the headers. you can't have it both ways. David Lang > > luckly that's not how things actually work. > > unfortunately, its not at all clear. > > > David Lang > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra > paulj@alphyra.ie > Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:21 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-02 1:38 ` Paul Jakma 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Lang; +Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote: > > further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system > > calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be > > considered to fall within this exemption. > > this is exactly the reasoning that nvidia uses to justify their use of the > headers. a kernel module does not make of use of the calls the exemption refers to. it calls exported /kernel/ functions. > you can't have it both ways. > > David Lang regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 2:57 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-02 1:57 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-02 20:39 ` David Schwartz 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:31:13AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote: > The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI > device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel > makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ > subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of > code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work. Well, no, look at the "nm" dump of the object file. It's got a lot of proprietary code that came from what looks like commerical libraries that they don't own. Back when they wrote the original drive, the GPL equivalents of DRM, AGP, etc... sucked so they had to write their own stuff just to get anything basic working. > driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia > driver is technically in material breach of GPL. Their portability layer wraps the low level calls into their own terminology and portability API. It's fairly outside of the linux kernel itself, internally the object file looks very Win32ish. Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although faded). It's a very practical solution to do it this way. > So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia > > You seem to be basing your opinion on: > > "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into > the Linux kernel" > > How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? All I saw where kernel header files include in the sources, nothing more. They have to support multipule architecture and OSes so keeping this stuff outside of the driver is a good thing. The GPL-ly stuff is publically available as source files. > I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about > binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces. > However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can > this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, > then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence? I'd rather have the experts do it at NVidia, than a half completed open source implementation that isn't terribly optimized. Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc... communication between user and kernel space that provides this to the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to provide support for it. bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 2:57 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 5:58 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Huey; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Bill Huey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:31:13AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote: > > subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of > > code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work. > > Well, no, look at the "nm" dump of the object file. It's got a lot of > proprietary code indeed. that doesnt change the fact that this large body of NVidia specific code still must make use of large parts of linux code (through function calls). > It's a very practical solution to do it this way. yes, but the legalities of it are rather grey. > > How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? > > All I saw where kernel header files include in the sources, nothing > more. indeed, and if that were the only issue it would be clear there is no issue. however, it must make use of linux code at runtime through function calls - as linux makes use of the NVidia proprietary code by calling the functions it provides. > I'd rather have the experts do it at NVidia, than a half completed > open source implementation that isn't terribly optimized. I run systems that use many GPL and fully open drivers that are quite well optimised. Some of these drivers were written by the vendor's "experts" and are distributed seperately - still GPL though. Sometimes one has a choice between drivers written by the vendor and drivers written by (non-expert???) "community" authors, and often one finds the vendor driver is the one that isn't terribly optimised. > Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc... none of this stuff is done in kernel (least it shouldnt be). Its done in user-space libraries. The XFree licence allows binary only modules, indeed XFree 4 was designed to make distribution of (possibly binary) modules as easy as possible. There isnt that much magic the NVidia kernel modules ought to be doing really. > communication between user and kernel space that provides this to > the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to > deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to > provide support for it. aha.. yes, all that complicated hardware stuff - you dont really want those linux kernel amatuers writing that. > bill regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 2:57 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 5:58 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 6:14 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:57:48AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote: > yes, but the legalities of it are rather grey. It didn't seem that bad to me, it was all pretty abstracted outside of their code. The glue layer to their object file is GPLed and therefore public so that should be fine from what I can see. > indeed, and if that were the only issue it would be clear there is no > issue. however, it must make use of linux code at runtime through > function calls - as linux makes use of the NVidia proprietary code by > calling the functions it provides. Like what ? PCI IO poking functions ? Things that do mmap() trickery ? That's pretty freaking basic. There wasn't anything terribly invasive about the driver and source that I saw. > Sometimes one has a choice between drivers written by the vendor and > drivers written by (non-expert???) "community" authors, and often one > finds the vendor driver is the one that isn't terribly optimised. But this is computationally critical 3D. I mean, what kind of 3D vendor would intentionally let something like that slide on x86 platforms ? > > Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc... > > none of this stuff is done in kernel (least it shouldnt be). Its done > in user-space libraries. That stuff is done in hardware these days, not software. I mean, how would anybody know what they're using. Why replicate that volume of functionality when it already works well. It simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure when decent AGP/DRM support is in place they can start removing that stuff out of the Linux binary and then make more of that publically available. There motivations where to simply protect themselve by not releasing proprietary code. > The XFree licence allows binary only modules, indeed XFree 4 was > designed to make distribution of (possibly binary) modules as easy as > possible. > > There isnt that much magic the NVidia kernel modules ought to be > doing really. Notification of event completion from the (just guessing) who knows what opcode operations the chip is doing, fast draw context switching, who knows. These things are starting to look like FPU coprocessors, circa 1990, these days. Different hardware has differing needs. If it's pretty freaking exotic, then let it to those folks handle it and the glue layer to userspace. It's not like folks in GPL community write entire 3D frameworks for this casually. High performance 3D is a Linux priority at this time. No real games or heavy 3D apps that use crazy chips stuff... > > communication between user and kernel space that provides this to > > the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to > > deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to > > provide support for it. > > aha.. yes, all that complicated hardware stuff - you dont really want > those linux kernel amatuers writing that. Well, having a generic kernel person, regardless of who they are, messing with 3d chips and interfacing it with their OpenGL libs isn't a light topic. This crap is heavy. So yes, its a good thing they've done this. What the hell do you think this is ? an Ethernet driver ? bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 5:58 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 6:14 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-02 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Huey; +Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms GPL aside (it could be argued forever...): I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time. If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my host operating system. So... to those (Hell.Surfers especially it seems) who believe that they are doing good by making a scene... realize that while you may succeed in improving the integrity of the GPL, you will also succeed in convincing companies that it may be more expensive than it is worth to provide their hardware or software for Linux. That may mean that I will be forced to stop using Linux at work, and possibly forced to stop using Linux at home. Perhaps I am a minority. Are you willing to bet the future of Linux on it? mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 6:14 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time. If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my host operating system. Many enthusiasts the "Linux" operating system take the popularity of the system (or of the kernel, Linux) as the supreme goal; but why should the popularity of any one operating system or program be so important? That isn't what really matters. We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive there. If you use non-free drivers, you go just part way along the road and never arrive at freedom. That defeats the purpose. To achieve freedom, we need to insist on free drivers (and free applications). Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> wrote: If nvidia provided non-functional GPL source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out, I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a functional driver within 2 weeks. If NVidia cooperates with us this much, we should certainly pick up the ball from there, and I am sure we will manage to go the rest of the way. But don't bet on 2 weeks. Softare always takes twice as long as you expect ;-). If it takes a whole month month to be able to use NVidia hardware in freedom, I won't complain about the delay. But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. It might take more than 4 weeks to write the code, but surely not more than a few months. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen ` (4 more replies) 2003-01-03 4:38 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 5 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free. Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from history. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 5:15 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 8:31 ` David S. Miller 2003-01-03 5:04 ` Marco Monteiro ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-03 5:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:06:12PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. > > Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch > out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual > property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it > to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would > only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? > > How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free. Unless I am terribly mistaken, Nvidia is a _hardware_ company. Their IP is a piece of silicon, fans, connectors, and resistors that you go to the store and _buy_. If you go visit pricewatch, it becomes immediately clear they are certainly not giving away their graphics cards for free. No one (not even rms) would expect them to give away their hardware for free. It takes money to design and produce such products, and they deserve a fair chance to make $$$ for their efforts. If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the methods used by their nifty 3D hardware. And if you go take a look, Nvidia has done exactly that. They have a big pile of patents protecting their hardware and 3D methods from being ripped off. I'll leave my usual rant on software and algorithm patents for another day, but given their pile of patents, I expect any driver specs and software they release would be useless to anyone but those that have purchased the right to use their IP (by buying one of their cards). So how exactly do they lose by giving out the details needed for proper drivers, or by providing source under the GPL? I can see your arguments above as perhaps relevant to a software company (cough, BK, cough), but this is not relevant to a hardware company like Nvidia. Unless their hardware is just an expensive placebo, and they really do _everything_ in software (dunno)? -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-03 5:15 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 8:31 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Erik Andersen, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:00:42PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:06:12PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. > > > > Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch > > out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual > > property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it > > to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would > > only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? > > > > How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free. > > Unless I am terribly mistaken, Nvidia is a _hardware_ company. > Their IP is a piece of silicon, fans, connectors, and resistors > that you go to the store and _buy_. If you go visit pricewatch, > it becomes immediately clear they are certainly not giving away > their graphics cards for free. No one (not even rms) would > expect them to give away their hardware for free. It takes money > to design and produce such products, and they deserve a fair > chance to make $$$ for their efforts. > > If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same > nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the > methods used by their nifty 3D hardware. It's virtually impossible to patent every aspect of a product, be it software or hardware. I'm well aware of the tradeoffs, and I know that every company gambles to some extent. You simply can't cover all the bases, you don't really know in advance which of the cool ideas will pay off. Sometimes it's the bad ideas which pay off. Given that patents don't cover everything, disclosing how your product works is doing nothing except helping your competition. If you don't disclose, you buy time. What you are suggesting is that Nvidia give up that time. In return for what? Your whining? Wow, that's inspiring. <RANT> I am REALLY REALLY fed up with all the armchair quarterbacks on this list. If you all think you have it so figured out, then get off your ass and go start a company. Give out full access to all of your IP, give out everything that you have been asking for, and make your company survive. Oh, having a little trouble getting VC while you give away your IP? Oh darn. Don't forget to patent everything at $15K/patent. What, the VC people won't give you the money for that because you gave away your IP. Huh. Guess that wasn't such a winning plan after all, was it. Jeez, didn't make payroll this week either, did ya? But it all sounded so good when you were telling other people how to do it. What went wrong? It is oh-so-easy to sit around and say "this is what should be done". Try being on the other end of that statement for a while and then tell us how it should be done. Stop whining, start doing, and until you've done so, shut the f*ck up. </RANT> -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 5:15 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 8:31 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2003-01-03 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andersen Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:00, Erik Andersen wrote: > If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same > nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the > methods used by their nifty 3D hardware. And if you go take a > look, Nvidia has done exactly that. Hehe, maybe the issue is just that... other people's patents :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-03 5:04 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 5:12 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 5:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 04:06, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. > > Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians > tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the > kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from > history. It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it won't work? It IS working. And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware. -- Marco Monteiro "You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend too much time reading this sort of trash." --/. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 5:04 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 5:12 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 12:16 ` Marco Monteiro 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marco Monteiro; +Cc: linux-kernel On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 04:06, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. > > > > Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians > > tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the > > kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from > > history. > > It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't > see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software > that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it > won't work? It IS working. > > And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware. Excellent you exercise your freedom of choice. Now do not take away anyone elses and all is cool. What is so hard about that? Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 5:12 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 12:16 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 05:12, Andre Hedrick wrote: > On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote: > > > > > It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't > > see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software > > that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it > > won't work? It IS working. > > > > And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware. > > Excellent you exercise your freedom of choice. > Now do not take away anyone elses and all is cool. > What is so hard about that? Nothing, indeed! But what is wrong about those who strive to make software Free for all? What Stallman and others do is to incentive people to make Free Software. I ask you, here and now, "Please, make all software that you write Free." What is wrong with this? I'm not taking away your freedom with this request. Then I say "I won't use your software because it is not Free.", and "Don't use software that is not Free." Again, what is the problem? It is really a good thing. Without all the Free Software there was and is, Linux would be a fraction of what is today. Without the GNU system, I, for one, would surely not run Linux! We must let people fight their battles. And the Free Software battle is a noble one! -- Marco Monteiro "If I cannot share it then I will not install it. If it requires me to mistreat others I would say no to it." --Richard Stallman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:16 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marco Monteiro, linux-kernel Yes but.... I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 years and cost $X million to develop. Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy people giving everything away for free! Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:46 ` John Alvord ` (2 more replies) 2003-01-03 14:49 ` Paul Jakma ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-03 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel Andrew Walrond wrote: > > Yes but.... > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > years and cost $X million to develop. > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > my people? > Am I a bad person charging for my work? No. > > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy > people giving everything away for free! > Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular, runs on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support. The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem is that their product comes with strange restrictions. Everybody accepts that a nvidia cards cost money - chips and boards certainly aren't free. They even provide drivers for their card for free. They can trivially do this because they make their money on selling the hardware. The problems are: 1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes, there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves. Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks. 2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch. But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_ this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because their equipment is ok with the free software world. This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-03 14:46 ` John Alvord 2003-01-03 14:48 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 19:33 ` Mark Mielke 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: John Alvord @ 2003-01-03 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Helge Hafting wrote: > Andrew Walrond wrote: > > > > Yes but.... > > > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > > years and cost $X million to develop. > > > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > > my people? > > > Am I a bad person charging for my work? > No. > > > > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy > > people giving everything away for free! > > > Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular, > runs > on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support. > > The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem > is that their product comes with strange restrictions. > > Everybody accepts that a nvidia cards cost money - chips and boards > certainly aren't free. They even provide drivers for their card > for free. They can trivially do this because they make their > money on selling the hardware. > > The problems are: > 1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes, > there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So > it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves. > Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't > making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware > if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense > even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't > be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks. > > 2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps > a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the > specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch. > But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_ > this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because > their equipment is ok with the free software world. Another possibility is that they used some propriatary software libraries which have restrictions. Didn't someone see some strings which suggested that? > > This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and > you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only > some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. > Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, > annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. > > Helge Hafting > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:46 ` John Alvord @ 2003-01-03 14:48 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 16:13 ` Erik Andersen [not found] ` <3E195A4B.B160B1D2@aitel.hist.no> 2003-01-03 19:33 ` Mark Mielke 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: linux-kernel Helge Hafting wrote: > Andrew Walrond wrote: > >>Am I a bad person charging for my work? > > No. Goodie! > >>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy >>people giving everything away for free! >> > > Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular, > runs > on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support. > But I don't sell service, or support. I sell *software* Am I bad again ? > The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem > is that their product comes with strange restrictions. > Ah - I see > > The problems are: > 1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes, > there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So > it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves. > Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't > making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware > if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense > even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't > be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks. > Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ? > 2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps > a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the > specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch. > But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_ > this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because > their equipment is ok with the free software world. > Gosh, they are naughty aren't they. But I can't release the source either, because little jonnie and his mates will all copy it and I'll go bust and I'll lose my house and my wife will leave me. Oh what a dilema! Am I a bad man ? > This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and > you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only > some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. > Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, > annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. > > Helge Hafting > Thanks for explaining that. I'm gonna hand myself in. I can hardly believe how bad I am. BAD Andrew. Bad bad bad! [Tongue so firmly in cheek that it hurts ;) Sorry Helge - I know you mean well!] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 14:48 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 16:13 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 16:58 ` David Schwartz [not found] ` <3E195A4B.B160B1D2@aitel.hist.no> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-03 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond; +Cc: Helge Hafting, linux-kernel On Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are > going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ? You are comparing apples and oranges. Software and hardware are fundamentally different. Nobody can download a graphics card and email copies to 50 of their friends. Your game (a piece of software) is the product. For Nvidia, their card (a piece of hardware) is the product. Nobody is suggesting Nvidia should give away all their hardware and chip designs and GPL them. That would of course be ludicrous. The only thing that is hoped for is that Nvidia might choose to release specs on their cards so folks can talk to their hardware. Sortof like how Intel and AMD and many other hardware companies releases specs on their chips so people can do whatever they want with them. Where would Linux be if Intel had never released the specs for their i386 chip? Has releasing the specs for their CPUs hit Intel? Nope. Because they have a boatload of patents and a boatload of lawyers. Similarly, Nvidia also has a boatload of patents and a boatload of lawyers... But thus far, they have not chosen to release specs. Thats their choice. But as a result of their choice, I choose to buy other hardware. -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 16:13 ` Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-03 16:58 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 14:04 ` Graham Murray 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-03 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andersen, Andrew Walrond; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:13:52 -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: >On Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote: >>Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are >>going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ? >You are comparing apples and oranges. Software and hardware are >fundamentally different. Nobody can download a graphics card and >email copies to 50 of their friends. Not today, but perhaps in a few dozen years. What can be done with FPGAs today is already pretty amazing. >Your game (a piece of software) is the product. For Nvidia, >their card (a piece of hardware) is the product. Nobody is >suggesting Nvidia should give away all their hardware and chip >designs and GPL them. That would of course be ludicrous. The video card is not nVidia's entire product. The software that comes with it and the support they provide is also part of that product. The performance you get from the video card is the product. Just a new driver version can sometimes provide markedly improved performance. So nVidia is probably doing things in their driver that could also speed up other people's graphics cards. >The only thing that is hoped for is that Nvidia might choose to >release specs on their cards so folks can talk to their hardware. That's a more reasonable argument. I accept the possibility that nVidia's drivers may contain huge amounts of investment that they don't want to let out to help their competition. Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just tell us what the interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're afraid ours will be better. ;) I guess they could possibly argue that the interfaces themselves are the result of large amounts of work that would significantly benefit their competitors. I don't know if that's really the case though. >Sort of like how Intel and AMD and many other hardware companies >releases specs on their chips so people can do whatever they want >with them. Where would Linux be if Intel had never released the >specs for their i386 chip? Has releasing the specs for their >CPUs hit Intel? Nope. Because they have a boatload of patents >and a boatload of lawyers. Similarly, Nvidia also has a boatload >of patents and a boatload of lawyers... But thus far, they have >not chosen to release specs. Thats their choice. But as a >result of their choice, I choose to buy other hardware. By the way, I haven't given up on open source hardware. I think it can be done with today's technology and is only becoming more and more possible as technology improves. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 16:58 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 14:04 ` Graham Murray 2003-01-05 22:37 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Graham Murray @ 2003-01-05 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes: > Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just tell us what the > interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're afraid > ours will be better. ;) Which could be of (commercial) benefit to them, as if the Open Source drivers were better than their own they could save money by not developing and supporting drivers and distributing the open source drivers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 14:04 ` Graham Murray @ 2003-01-05 22:37 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 1:43 ` Ian Molton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-05 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Graham Murray; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 02:04:34PM +0000, Graham Murray wrote: > David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes: > > Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just tell us what the > > interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're afraid > > ours will be better. ;) > Which could be of (commercial) benefit to them, as if the Open Source > drivers were better than their own they could save money by not > developing and supporting drivers and distributing the open source > drivers. Especially in the case of hardware, one of the primary reasons I suspect companies to resist open source drivers is 'risk'. Scenario: I invent some sort of fancy hardware that does some incredible thing. Companies all over the world love my hardware, and they install it on all of their computers. I use the profit to fund more research, development, expanding my company into other areas, and of course, some of the profit goes to the stock holders. My customers want my hardware to work on Linux. I say hmm... well... it will only cost 4 full-time people resources to do this... and I can even let them do Linux development on the side when they aren't busy as a method of letting my company be more popular in the open source community. Then one day the suggestion is made to me -- why hire 4 full-time people resources, when you can hire only one, release the code as open source, and let the community manage it? I think about it for a while. What could I possibly lose? I do it. Open sourced drivers, YEAH! Cheaper for me, the customers love it, and I even get free features that I didn't even think about. Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My support lines start ringing off the hook. The thing doesn't work in the new version of Linux! I plead with the open source community to complete the work, but for some reason, these people are on vacation, or want to be working on something else! Nobody is responsible for the source code, and I can't do anything about it! I quickly make a plea to a wider community "anybody have good references and can work on this project ASAP for a very decent sum of money?" Finally, a week later, the details are sorted out, and development begins. My customers are mad. I have no control of the situation. What is this head-ache worth? I made this scenario up. It might have no bases on reality. However - companies don't always fear only the scenarios that could happen. The fear what shouldn't happen, that they cannot control. They have to. They have thousands of stock holders who will have their neck if they fail. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 22:37 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 1:43 ` Ian Molton 2003-01-06 5:26 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Ian Molton @ 2003-01-06 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: graham, linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500 Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote: > > Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My > support lines start ringing off the hook. To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 1:43 ` Ian Molton @ 2003-01-06 5:26 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 10:44 ` Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 5:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Molton; +Cc: graham, linux-kernel On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:43:22AM +0000, Ian Molton wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500 Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote: > > Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My > > support lines start ringing off the hook. > To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.' The question of responsibility remains unanswered. If the software causes unreasonable damage to the user's computer, who can be sued? A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory) In my opinion, the chosen model should be based on economic feasibility, not on religious persuasion. If open source truly is the better model for a candidate product, the model will be used. Whether this takes the form of the original product becoming open sourced, or a competing open source product developed, the result is the same. If you want to convince a company to change their model to be of the open sourced variety, you will need logic such as the above to convince them. mark P.S. I do realize that many people have experienced better 'support' from open source communities, than from companies. I consider this an amazing blessing that should not be taken for granted. The voluntary contributions that make this possible need to be respected as *beyond* what one should expect, and the volunteers themselves need to be respected as champions of the open source community. Anything less is taking these contributions and contributors for granted as a free resource available to be exploited. For example, if Red Hat were to claim that you should purchase the Red Hat distribution of Linux/GNU, because the open source community that produces most of the products contained within the distribution will provide better support than other commercially available *nix systems, Red Hat would be obtaining profit from the voluntary contributions of other people. This is not strictly right. (I don't know if Red Hat has ever done this... Just a scenario...) -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 5:26 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 10:44 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-06 16:06 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-06 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: linux-kernel Mark Mielke wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:43:22AM +0000, Ian Molton wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500 Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote: > > > Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My > > > support lines start ringing off the hook. > > To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.' > > The question of responsibility remains unanswered. If the software causes > unreasonable damage to the user's computer, who can be sued? A question of little interest, since suing won't happen anyway. The paid-for licences always include "This program may not be useful for any purpose, we assume no reponsibility," and so on. > A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this > level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory) Nope. Did anybody ever sue microsoft because windows crashed and ate the disk, destroying valuable data? Or for loss of productivity during downtime? It can't be done. Forget about it. Paying for a os might get you a support phone number, but _no_ more responsibility than free sw downloaded from somewhere. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 10:44 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-06 16:06 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:44:49AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote: > Mark Mielke wrote: > > A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this > > level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory) > Nope. Did anybody ever sue microsoft because windows crashed and ate > the disk, destroying valuable data? Or for loss of productivity during > downtime? Then the problem is that companies get away with marketting poor quality solutions. They wouldn't get away with it if they sold a car, or a baby high-chair. Why should they get away with it for software? Software managed by the community cannot have a single point of responsibility. I'm telling you why companies initially don't like such products. I'm not claiming whether it is right, or whether it applies in reality. If you want to convince a company otherwise, you can't ignore the concern. You need to convince them that their feeling of security from closed source projects is unfounded. It isn't hand waving, or general claims like 'when have you ever been able to get MS to pay for its mistakes?' It is hard numbers. These are not easy to come by. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3E195A4B.B160B1D2@aitel.hist.no>]
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? [not found] ` <3E195A4B.B160B1D2@aitel.hist.no> @ 2003-01-06 11:23 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-07 9:08 ` Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-06 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: linux-kernel I am in almost complete agreement with you regarding the benefits of free drivers. But my point has evolved from this argument over nvidia and I extended the principles to my business to see where it would lead. I don't see rms saying "Non free software is bad, except games" Andrew Helge Hafting wrote: > Andrew Walrond wrote: > >>Helge Hafting wrote: >> >>>Andrew Walrond wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Am I a bad person charging for my work? >>> >>>No. >> >>Goodie! >> >> >>>>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy >>>>people giving everything away for free! >>>> >>> >>>Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular, >>>runs >>>on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support. >>> >> >>But I don't sell service, or support. I sell *software* >>Am I bad again ? > > No - there's nothing wrong in selling software. I buy it if I want > it, or don't if I don't think it is worth the money. > > Of course the same apply to nvidia - I choose not to buy their hardware > _because_ of their secrecy. Many aren't that lucky, you can't usually > dictate the components of a work machine. > > >>>The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem >>>is that their product comes with strange restrictions. >>> >> >>Ah - I see >> >> >>>The problems are: >>>1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes, >>> there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So >>> it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves. >>> Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't >>> making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware >>> if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense >>> even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't >>> be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks. >>> >> >>Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are >>going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ? >> > > You can't compare your games to nvidia drivers. Your game might have > a problem, but that is a problem with the game only. Trouble > with video drivers means you can't use the computer properly > at all. > > Most people don't bother debugging a video game - if it is crap, they > don't play it. Because they don't need it. It is just a fun > thing _if_ it works. You need working video hardware though - under > all circumstances. > > >>>2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps >>> a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the >>> specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch. >>> But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_ >>> this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because >>> their equipment is ok with the free software world. >>> >> >>Gosh, they are naughty aren't they. But I can't release the source >>either, because little jonnie and his mates will all copy it and I'll go >>bust and I'll lose my house and my wife will leave me. Oh what a dilema! >>Am I a bad man ? > > > I repeat - the two cases aren't comparable. People need fixable drivers > and > docs so their screen will work under all circumstances - including > future changes in the os. > > A game isn't like that at all. Nothing depends on it other than the game > itself. > Particularly, no expensive hardware depends on it. > > >>>This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and >>>you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only >>>some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. >>>Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, >>>annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. >>> >>>Helge Hafting >>> >> >>Thanks for explaining that. >> >>I'm gonna hand myself in. I can hardly believe how bad I am. BAD Andrew. >>Bad bad bad! >> >>[Tongue so firmly in cheek that it hurts ;) Sorry Helge - I know you >>mean well!] > > > Try to understand this: the problems with nvidia does not apply to your > gaming business. Both of you sell some closed-source software, that > don't > make you equal at all though. In your case the software game is the > product. > In nvidia's case the software is merely something necessary to make the > hardware product work. > > Good open-source drivers is a huge win for us and a small win for > nvidia, > they have nothing to loose here. Your situation is different, open > source > might make the game impossible to sell, as you say. Most people > understand > and accept that. > > Helge Hafting > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 11:23 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-07 9:08 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-07 15:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-07 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel Andrew Walrond wrote: > > I am in almost complete agreement with you regarding the benefits of > free drivers. > > But my point has evolved from this argument over nvidia and I extended > the principles to my business to see where it would lead. > > I don't see rms saying "Non free software is bad, except games" > Well, I don't speak for rms, and I think there is a rather big difference between drivers and games. I understand economic motives. Of course you don't give away games when that is a total loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still need to buy those cards. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 9:08 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-07 15:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-08 10:06 ` Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-07 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --] On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > need to buy those cards. It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else. Of course, if that happened, you'd still have the "freedom" to buy the other vendor's cards - maybe(*) In the real world, ideology needs to be tempered with realism. (*) there's a ripple effect here - if the otherwise-best laptop is only available with an nvidia card, you now have the "freedom" to choose a otherwise less-suitable model. And so on.... [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 15:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-08 10:06 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-08 12:28 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-08 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Valdis.Kletnieks, linux-kernel Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > > need to buy those cards. > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in > a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual > property that belonged to somebody else. Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically things like: "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5 and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before attempting to access the chip again..." Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of information. Several other manufacturers have no problem with this. > In the real world, ideology needs to be tempered with realism. > Sure. But in this case, it is more about common sense than ideology. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 10:06 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-08 12:28 ` Mark Hounschell 2003-01-08 15:33 ` Jesse Pollard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Hounschell @ 2003-01-08 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Helge Hafting wrote: > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > > > need to buy those cards. > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in > > a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual > > property that belonged to somebody else. > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically > things like: > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5 > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before > attempting to access the chip again..." > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of > information. > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this. Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want??? Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 12:28 ` Mark Hounschell @ 2003-01-08 15:33 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-08 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: markh, linux-kernel On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote: > Helge Hafting wrote: > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > > > > need to buy those cards. > > > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else. > > > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically > > things like: > > > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5 > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before > > attempting to access the chip again..." > > > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of > > information. > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this. > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal > nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and > chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they > disappear, nvidia can do what they want??? Think they sold it to Microsoft.... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil Any opinions expressed are solely my own. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 15:33 ` Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Mark Hounschell 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Jesse Pollard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Hounschell @ 2003-01-08 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Jesse Pollard wrote: > > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote: > > Helge Hafting wrote: > > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting > <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > > > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > > > > > need to buy those cards. > > > > > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were > > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that > > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else. > > > > > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the > > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is > > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically > > > things like: > > > > > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5 > > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before > > > attempting to access the chip again..." > > > > > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of > > > information. > > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this. > > > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal > > nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and > > chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they > > disappear, nvidia can do what they want??? > > Think they sold it to Microsoft.... I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not anything hardware related. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Mark Hounschell @ 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-01-08 16:00 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-08 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: markh, linux-kernel On Wednesday 08 January 2003 09:46 am, Mark Hounschell wrote: > Jesse Pollard wrote: > > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote: > > > Helge Hafting wrote: > > > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting > > > > <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> said: > > > > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs) > > > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still > > > > > > need to buy those cards. > > > > > > > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were > > > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that > > > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else. > > > > > > > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the > > > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is > > > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically > > > > things like: > > > > > > > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5 > > > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms > > > > before attempting to access the chip again..." > > > > > > > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of > > > > information. > > > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this. > > > > > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some > > > deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their > > > driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. > > > Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want??? > > > > Think they sold it to Microsoft.... > > I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not > anything hardware > related. That part I'm sure of. But part of what was sold is the interface to the "OPENGL" software, and that is part of what is implemented by the nvidia chips. So, by a tenuous extension, the chips interface may be owned by M$. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil Any opinions expressed are solely my own. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-08 16:00 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Hounschell @ 2003-01-08 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Jesse Pollard wrote: > > > > > > > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some > > > > deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their > > > > driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. > > > > Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want??? > > > > > > Think they sold it to Microsoft.... > > > > I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not > > anything hardware > > related. > > That part I'm sure of. But part of what was sold is the interface to the > "OPENGL" software, and that is part of what is implemented by the > nvidia chips. So, by a tenuous extension, the chips interface may be > owned by M$. That's scary..... Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:46 ` John Alvord 2003-01-03 14:48 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 19:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 10:31 ` Helge Hafting 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helge Hafting; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:42:14PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote: > This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and > you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only > some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. > Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, > annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. Balderdash! It is like selling a car with free professional maintenance, but no manuals to allow you to repair your own car. :-) It might be true that nVidia is actually limiting their market. Since that results in loss of money to nVidia, and not to you, it really isn't any of our call. If they are not yet comfortable with the GPL, then that is the way it is. _I'm_ not comfortable with the GPL -- although that is mostly Richard Stallman's fault, as I liked the GPL before he opened his mouth... mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 19:33 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 10:31 ` Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-06 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: linux-kernel Mark Mielke wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:42:14PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote: > > This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and > > you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only > > some of them. So you can't fill anywhere. > > Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme, > > annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer. > > Balderdash! It is like selling a car with free professional > maintenance, but no manuals to allow you to repair your own car. :-) You get free maintenance on your nvidia drivers? _Enough_ maintenance? > > It might be true that nVidia is actually limiting their market. Since > that results in loss of money to nVidia, and not to you, it really isn't > any of our call. It is a loss to me too - I might want to use that hardware - _if_ they would release the specs at zero cost to them. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-03 14:49 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-03 16:16 ` Marco Monteiro ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-03 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond; +Cc: Marco Monteiro, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Yes but.... > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > years and cost $X million to develop. > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? Absolutely not. > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of > happy people giving everything away for free! > > Andrew regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:49 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-03 16:16 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 16:16 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Yes but.... > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > years and cost $X million to develop. > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not yours. I don't play games much. But I remember when I did; I know people who do, now. I would say that around 95% of the games I see being played are pirated. I know person who, without buying a single game have 500+ CDs with games. I bought 12 games, until 4 or 5 years ago. Before buying, I played each one of them: I liked the game and, naturally, I bought it, to support the guys who made it. If I see a Free Software game that I like and play, I will support the producers. It is not because I don't have the software for free (as in 'free' bear) that I buy it; I can get any game for free (or for the price of the CDs). I believe that other ways of selling Free Software would be as much or more profitable for those who make games. (But not for distributors, and that is the problem, because they rule the market.) Of course I'm not going to tell you what other ways there are, because then you would know as much as I and I would lose that advantage. ;) And maybe these other ways of selling Free Software could serve as a filter for crappy games, which is good. > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy > people giving everything away for free! > > Andrew You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free for Freedom'. -- Marco Monteiro "All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed." --Sean O'Casey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 16:16 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marco Monteiro; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote: > > Yes but.... > > > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > > years and cost $X million to develop. > > > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? > > No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not > yours. So since I work for myself and own my own companies, thus I own the code and I own the decision of what is published, I am the bad person? Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing. Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote. I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned. Yet you bitch and whine and hold your hand out for me to do it for free? Well everything has a cost. You know I still have plans to open source a version of a current product after I make some money and recover the 18 months of development, hardware cost, travel, trade show, future membership dues. Why, because it is the right thing to do, and it will benefit me in the long run, and the open source. It also will raise the bar for what people expect. So I am bad, gee thanks. Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported. I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support services. > You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free > for Freedom'. I understand that "FREE" does not pay the mortgage, pay for food, or pay employees, or anything else. So you think GPL is welfare for the underclass, nice. Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 18:03 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-04 13:53 ` Daniel Egger 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Marco Monteiro, Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported. > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support > services. Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks, only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag. :-) -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 18:03 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:29 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 1:33 ` David Schwartz 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Marco Monteiro, Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported. > > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support > > services. > > Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks, > only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag. Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do electronic wire transfers in two stages now. One to a front bank that relays to the second real one. Pissy people who try to get their money back by rewinding the tapes! I guess I will spend the profits on sharks, instead of maybe funding projects. See there are people who will do the right thing. The part people do not get is, they only do it when it benefits them also. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:03 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 18:29 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 1:33 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Marco Monteiro, Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported. > > > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support > > > services. > > > > Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks, > > only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag. > > Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world > the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do > electronic wire transfers in two stages now. I should mention it is The Department of Treasury's Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service who can not pay their BILLS! This is in concert with all the partners in the Intelligence gathering communitities, who are indirectly to blame for not paying their bills. Then again who cares. Later! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:03 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:29 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 1:33 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-04 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andre; +Cc: linux-kernel >Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world >the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do >electronic wire transfers in two stages now. I've had the opposite experience. I've found that the spooks pay on time and never haggle over price. Though I've had occasional surreal experiences like being asked if I could confirm that my software met a set specifications without being permitted to see those specifications. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect ` (2 more replies) 2003-01-04 13:53 ` Daniel Egger 2 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3781 bytes --] On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 17:45, Andre Hedrick wrote: > On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote: > > > Yes but.... > > > > > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > > > years and cost $X million to develop. > > > > > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > > > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? > > > > No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not > > yours. > > So since I work for myself and own my own companies, thus I own the code > and I own the decision of what is published, I am the bad person? > > Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing. > Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote. > I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of > membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for > new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned. > > Yet you bitch and whine and hold your hand out for me to do it for free? > > Well everything has a cost. > > You know I still have plans to open source a version of a current product > after I make some money and recover the 18 months of development, hardware > cost, travel, trade show, future membership dues. Why, because it is the > right thing to do, and it will benefit me in the long run, and the open > source. It also will raise the bar for what people expect. > > So I am bad, gee thanks. > > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported. > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support > services. > > > You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free > > for Freedom'. > > I understand that "FREE" does not pay the mortgage, pay for food, or pay > employees, or anything else. So you think GPL is welfare for the > underclass, nice. I ask you some questions. You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now, that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better? In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so answer this question and you will understand my point of view. Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see any other possibility. You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free Software is bad? I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position: my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy. The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole, but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was Free Software. -- Marco Monteiro [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect 2003-01-03 23:44 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:52 ` jw schultz 2003-01-04 15:41 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Disconnect @ 2003-01-03 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel I just can't let anything this silly go by.. On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 16:19, Marco Monteiro wrote: > I ask you some questions. > > You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you > sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now, > that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the > software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better? It'd be even better if you could change the business model so that you made MORE money without having to even go through the effort of making software, or even doing much of anything at all. But (as you may recall) that business model imploded rather dramatically last year or so... > In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world > if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other > ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so > answer this question and you will understand my point of view. Anyone who opens a statement with "wouldn't it be a better world..." has usually just found another variant on "..if wishing really hard for something made it come true?" This is no different. > Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make > money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just > maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see > any other possibility. > > You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free > Software is bad? Yep. Because you have wishes and horses confused. (Or, possibly, were hit on the head recently.) Want to get them detangled? Explain how he can recoup his millions of dollars worth of game development by giving it away; don't just say "it'd be swell if you did, and the world would be better, honest" but say HOW. As in "it'd be swell if you did, and you can feed your family by <stealing/working in fast food/selling someone else's game instead/....>" > I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would > not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter > what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position: > my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL > NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body > they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world > would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say > that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy. > The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that > every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole, > but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm > convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was > Free Software. Um. Heh. I'm gonna leave this to stand, there's very little I can add that wouldn't reduce its humour. > -- > Marco Monteiro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect @ 2003-01-03 23:44 ` Marco Monteiro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Disconnect; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 21:37, Disconnect wrote: > > I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would > > not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter > > what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position: > > my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL > > NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body > > they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world > > would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say > > that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy. > > The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that > > every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole, > > but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm > > convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was > > Free Software. > > Um. Heh. I'm gonna leave this to stand, there's very little I can add > that wouldn't reduce its humour. I'm happy you found it funny. At least it serves the purpose of amusing someone. :) -- Marco Monteiro <masm@acm.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect @ 2003-01-03 21:52 ` jw schultz 2003-01-04 15:41 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: jw schultz @ 2003-01-03 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel I almost missed the best laugh I've had in a while. Thanks so much. I'm sure it wasn't intentional on your part and i don't wish to belittle your poor English but you might wish to work on it. It is not my habit to make fun of the mistakes of others. On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 09:19:49PM +0000, Marco Monteiro wrote: > I ask you some questions. > > You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you > sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now, > that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the > software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better? > > In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world > if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other > ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so > answer this question and you will understand my point of view. > > Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make > money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just > maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see > any other possibility. > > You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free > Software is bad? > > I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would > not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter > what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position: > my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL > NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body > they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world > would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say > that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy. > The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that > every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole, > but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm > convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was > Free Software. I think he meant "everybody". The word "everyone" would have completely avoided the double entendre. I should note that in a draft you could be convicted. Not every country tolerates conscientious objectors and even the U.S. has rather stringent requirements for that status. And no, i don't consider anyone who actually stands by such principles when the going gets tough a wimp. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect 2003-01-03 21:52 ` jw schultz @ 2003-01-04 15:41 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-04 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marco Monteiro; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote: > You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you > sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now, > that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the > software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better? Are you volunteering to set up such a business for Andre, or are you just doing vague ideological handwaving ? Andre does release his software eventually, after he has recovered the development costs. This is a lot more than what most developers do and I am thankful that Andre's business model means both an income for him and high quality free software drivers. > You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free > Software is bad? No, you haven't told us why. > I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. Does that also mean that if somebody called on you to do what you're asking others to do (create free software while earning money with it), you wouldn't do it ? > The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that > every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole, So you're asking, in the name of freedom, that other people should limit their freedom ? I wouldn't call it idealism, I call it hypocricy. Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-04 13:53 ` Daniel Egger 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Daniel Egger @ 2003-01-04 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --] Am Fre, 2003-01-03 um 18.45 schrieb Andre Hedrick: > Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing. > Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote. > I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of > membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for > new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned. Please don't jump on this train. Actually you're bitching about people whining; instead you should give people the possibility to pay you for your *really nice* (though a bit cryptic at times :)) work. Ok, I'd like to make a start: I'd like to donate, say €20 for now, do you cash credit cards? -- Servus, Daniel [-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 16:16 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 16:16 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-03 16:37 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-03 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andrew, Marco Monteiro, linux-kernel On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:51:04 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote: >Yes but.... >I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 >years and cost $X million to develop. >Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding >my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? >Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy >people giving everything away for free! You can't with the GPL, because it presents you with a "take it or leave it" package deal. But you could with a different license. What you do is you base your game off of whatever open source code gets you the furthest. The game itself, of course, is closed source. After your first few months of sales, you contribute some of the code you wrote back to the open source community. Why shouldn't you? It hurts you not one bit and it's free publicity. Heck, after a few year, maybe you open source the whole game. The next person to write a game can start where you left off to some extent. He can develop a better game for less money, and he can contribute more code back to the community. Eventually, there may be enough code in the comnunity to develop such complex games entirely open source. However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most advanced proprietary base that can be found. Everybody loses except the person who makes the proprietary base or engine you started with. I think working to make all software better and cheaper is much more noble goal than working to arm twist other people into giving you their code. And the best part is, you can work to strengthen fair use, first sale, and oppose the validity of shrink wrap licenses. You can argue for a narrower definition of a derived work. In fact, you can at least *try* to win the legal war. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 16:16 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-03 16:37 ` Marco Monteiro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 16:16, David Schwartz wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:51:04 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote: > > >Yes but.... > > >I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > >years and cost $X million to develop. > > >Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > >my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? > > >Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy > >people giving everything away for free! > > You can't with the GPL, because it presents you with a "take it or leave it" > package deal. But you could with a different license. > > What you do is you base your game off of whatever open source code gets you > the furthest. The game itself, of course, is closed source. After your first > few months of sales, you contribute some of the code you wrote back to the > open source community. > > Why shouldn't you? It hurts you not one bit and it's free publicity. Heck, > after a few year, maybe you open source the whole game. > > The next person to write a game can start where you left off to some extent. > He can develop a better game for less money, and he can contribute more code > back to the community. Eventually, there may be enough code in the comnunity > to develop such complex games entirely open source. > > However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a > proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open > source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most > advanced proprietary base that can be found. > > Everybody loses except the person who makes the proprietary base or engine > you started with. I think working to make all software better and cheaper is > much more noble goal than working to arm twist other people into giving you > their code. > > And the best part is, you can work to strengthen fair use, first sale, and > oppose the validity of shrink wrap licenses. You can argue for a narrower > definition of a derived work. In fact, you can at least *try* to win the > legal war. > > DS > > That is not right. The problem is that all people think that you can't sell a game if it is Free Software. If the game is good you can. People buy paintings and public domain classic music... > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Marco Monteiro "All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed." --Sean O'Casey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 16:16 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-03 19:02 ` Andre Hedrick ` (3 more replies) 4 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jon Portnoy @ 2003-01-03 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Walrond; +Cc: linux-kernel You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as in price, we're talking about free as in freedom. Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Yes but.... > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 > years and cost $X million to develop. > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? > > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy > people giving everything away for free! > > Andrew > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy @ 2003-01-03 19:02 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 19:10 ` Ben Greear ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Portnoy; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Jon Portnoy wrote: > You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as > in price, we're talking about free as in freedom. > > Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. How about understanding "freedom" has a price and that price is not "free". The price is to do it yourself, or pay someone else to do it. Regardless there are associated costs, so the context is correct. You choose stop at the idea of "freedom" no the cost of granting the "freedom". Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-03 19:02 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 19:10 ` Ben Greear 2003-01-03 20:21 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2003-01-03 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Portnoy; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, linux-kernel Jon Portnoy wrote: > You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as > in price, we're talking about free as in freedom. > > Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. Please don't be so naive as to imply that there is no coorelation between the freedom to download, compile, use, and distribute source, and the freedom of not having to pay for the source or binary. While some enlightened few may donate a few bucks here and there to free projects, the vast majority do not, and I do not ever expect that to change. For instance: I wrote a vlan module for linux once. And put up a pay-pal donation cup. I have received two donations of 50c each in three years. It actually amuses me that I got that much, and I do not want anyone who reads this to even think of donating more. :) And please don't mention the 'support model'. This may work for a few market segments serving big businesses, but it does not appear to work at all for end-user applications. > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote: > > >>Yes but.... >> >>I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2 >>years and cost $X million to develop. >> >>Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding >>my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work? >> >>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy >>people giving everything away for free! >> >>Andrew >> >>- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-03 19:02 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 19:10 ` Ben Greear @ 2003-01-03 20:21 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-03 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Portnoy, linux-kernel Ah, so I'm not bad then - just confused! Just to confirm then; I am free to develop computer games, keep the source code closed, sell the software for cash, and I'm just a fine and dandy chap and Richard Stallman will be my bestest mate? Fab! I'm so happy. [ For non British among you: Irony \I"ron*y\, n.[L. ironia, Gr. ? dissimulation, fr. ? a dissembler in speech, fr. ? to speak; perh. akin to E. word: cf. F. ironie.] 1. Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of confounding or provoking an antagonist. 2. A sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, which adopts a mode of speech the meaning of which is contrary to the literal sense of the words. ] Jon Portnoy wrote: > Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. You're having a laugh mate. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 20:21 ` Andrew Walrond @ 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-04 1:24 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-04 5:28 ` Scott Robert Ladd 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-04 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Portnoy; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:38, Jon Portnoy wrote: > You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as > in price, we're talking about free as in freedom. > > Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-04 1:24 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-04 5:28 ` Scott Robert Ladd 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-01-04 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: root; +Cc: Jon Portnoy, Andrew Walrond, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:38, Jon Portnoy wrote: > >>You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as >>in price, we're talking about free as in freedom. >> >>Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom. > > > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets Hey now! Let's not be that insulting to muppets... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-04 1:24 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2003-01-04 5:28 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-04 8:06 ` Jon Portnoy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-04 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: root, Jon Portnoy; +Cc: Andrew Walrond, Linux Kernel Mailing List > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets Now *that's* funny. I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame war during these cold winter months. ..Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 5:28 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-04 8:06 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-04 8:21 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jon Portnoy @ 2003-01-04 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel > > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets > > Now *that's* funny. > > I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame > war during these cold winter months. > > ..Scott > And besides, wouldn't you like to see Rush Limbaugh arguing with Kermit The Frog? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 8:06 ` Jon Portnoy @ 2003-01-04 8:21 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Portnoy; +Cc: Scott Robert Ladd, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Jon Portnoy wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > > > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel > > > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets > > > > Now *that's* funny. > > > > I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame > > war during these cold winter months. > > > > ..Scott > > > > > And besides, wouldn't you like to see Rush Limbaugh arguing with Kermit > The Frog? Oh but seeing Bill Clinton putting the moves on Ms. Piggy, would be the best! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 5:04 ` Marco Monteiro @ 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards 2003-01-03 15:57 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-04 22:06 ` Matthias Andree 4 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-01-03 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel At 08:06 PM 1/2/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: >On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. > >Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch >out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual >property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it >to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would >only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? > >How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free. <yank> You're just saying that to justify your evil BK license ;-) </yank> (hey, somebody was _gonna_ do it) Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special? -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith @ 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards 2003-01-03 7:04 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 more replies) 2003-01-03 15:57 ` Randy.Dunlap 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Brad Hards @ 2003-01-03 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:04, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are > protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing > anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that > tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special? Giving away the technical detail probably shows where they are infringing other people's patents. I _hate_ intellectual property. Brad - -- http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+FS3QW6pHgIdAuOMRAijcAJ4yMN+FzR3O/XoVOh2mfoVvvw0j1QCgoOOB +IouTHjgefoy0BMxUvyQhWc= =YLWT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards @ 2003-01-03 7:04 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:31 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 18:16 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Brad Hards wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:04, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are > > protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing > > anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that > > tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special? > > Giving away the technical detail probably shows where they are infringing > other people's patents. You could not hit the core point of this issue any harder! This is one of the reason I have to sign all those massive restrictive NDA's in order to obtain the SPEC's to publish "FREE SOURCE", and currently having to write off the expenses for the legalese to make sure I do not get trapped. If you get to close, you get tatooed with NDA's. I can heat my house for the winter in a few years when the first round of NDAs expire! Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards 2003-01-03 7:04 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 18:31 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 1:34 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 18:16 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-03 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brad Hards; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel In message <200301031729.36696.bhards@bigpond.net.au>, Brad Hards writes: [snip] > I _hate_ intellectual property. Unless, of course, you happen to have some yourself. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bob Taylor Email: brtaylor@sanfelipe.com.mx | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a | | swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you | | can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell | | if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)| +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 18:31 ` Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-04 1:34 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Taylor; +Cc: Brad Hards, Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:31:58AM -0800, Bob Taylor wrote: > In message <200301031729.36696.bhards@bigpond.net.au>, Brad > Hards writes: > > [snip] > > > I _hate_ intellectual property. > > Unless, of course, you happen to have some yourself. Flaming on the kernel list: $20 minutes. Reading all the flames: $120 minutes. A flash of truth like Bob's statement: Priceless. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards 2003-01-03 7:04 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:31 ` Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-04 18:16 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-04 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brad Hards; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Brad Hards wrote: > I _hate_ intellectual property. So don't use the word at all, think of it as intellectual patrimony instead. Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards @ 2003-01-03 15:57 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-01-03 19:44 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-01-03 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote: | At 08:06 PM 1/2/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: | >On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they | > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the | > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. | > | >Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch | >out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual | >property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it | >to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would | >only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? | > | >How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free. | | <yank> | You're just saying that to justify your evil BK license ;-) | </yank> (hey, somebody was _gonna_ do it) | | Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are | protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing | anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that | tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special? Imagine them doing that for their current CPU. That's what Nvidia is doing, isn't it? At a LinuxWorld panel 2-3 years ago, Nicholas Petreley (sp?) chaired a group discussion about this. There were 2 competing sound chip manufacturers represented, and they denied any interest in each other's hardware. However, if one of them was well-documented, then someone could get info on their current product. Well, that _could_ be a bad thing for company #2 and put company #2 on a road that was one generation later than the first company was now designing/building. So in one scenario it could end up as a negative for the "copying" company. -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 15:57 ` Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-01-03 19:44 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy.Dunlap Cc: Mike Galbraith, Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:57:52AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > | Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are > | protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing > | anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that > | tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special? > Imagine them doing that for their current CPU. > That's what Nvidia is doing, isn't it? It would be the same if Intel came with its own operating system, or if nVidia hardware came without drivers. As it is, it really *isn't* the same. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith @ 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy ` (3 more replies) 2003-01-04 22:06 ` Matthias Andree 4 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual property for free, The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyrights, patents, trademarks and other more obscure areas of law, all of which are totally different. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.) Its main use is to obfuscate the difference between these areas and discourage careful clear thinking. The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun, and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not take your advice. Of all the programs in our community, your hostility falls most squarely on kernels, since kernels are where most drivers go. Every Linux developer should take note of the wishes you have just implied for the future development of Linux. Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians tried communism and it didn't work. The free software movement has always existed within Capitalism, and fits within the Capitalist system. Our views have little in common with Communism--we encourage business as long as it respects other people's freedom to cooperate. Nothing could be more different from the command economy that failed than the decentralized free software community. Inaccurate though it is, our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps because Communism is easier to attack than our real views. It is the world of proprietary software and other non-free information that resembles the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union made strenuous efforts to prevent and punish forbidden copying. The US today is using analogous repressive methods to do the same thing. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 22:17 ` Rik van Riel ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel > The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our > community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company > to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun, > and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not > take your advice. News flash: it's a well documented fact that there was nobody at Sun who before or since has spent as much time as I have trying to free up Sun's code. Take a look at http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html which Bob Young credits as having a large influence on how Red Hat was set up, also well documented. Tell me again that I don't understand free software and that I'm against it and all you do is make yourself look even more foolish. Whether you want to resemble one of the wackos on soapbox in Hyde Park is up to you, but that's what you look like. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: lm, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel > The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our > community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company > to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun, > and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not > take your advice. News flash: it's a well documented fact that there was nobody at Sun who before or since has spent as much time as I have trying to free up Sun's code. Please tell your earlier self that I appreciate his work, and that I am glad that that the opposition expressed in your previous message did not deter him from doing it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 22:17 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-05 18:39 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-03 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyrights, patents, > trademarks and other more obscure areas of law, all of which are > totally different. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.) > Its main use is to obfuscate the difference between these areas and > discourage careful clear thinking. How about expanding the acronym IP to mean "intellectual patrimony" ? This reflects on both sides of the copyright deal and the patent system: 1) the work/invention was created by somebody, who should be compensated as an encouragement to share the work/invention with the rest of humankind 2) ultimately the work/invention belongs to all of mankind and not to the author/inventor ... after all, the work/invention is based on thousands of years of cultural and technical development, the vast majority of which is used without any restrictions or royalties (eg. the wheel) 3) future generations should be able to use the new intellectual patrimony without any restriction, just like we are able to use old intellectual patrimony without any restrictions kind regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 22:17 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: riel; +Cc: lm, mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel How about expanding the acronym IP to mean "intellectual patrimony" ? The term "intellectual patrimony" might be a good one for some purposes, but if you want people to know you are using it, I suggest you spell it out in full every time. At present, when people see the abbreviation "IP", they will think "intellectual property". However, it is usually best to talk about "copyright", or about "patents", or about "trademarks", and avoid generalizations that would tend to blur the boundaries. The widespread use of "intellectual property" leads people to suppose these laws (and the issues they raise) are mostly similar, but they are not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 22:17 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 9:06 ` Vincent Bernat 2003-01-04 21:04 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 18:39 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-04 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel In message <E18UYT2-0004xV-00@fencepost.gnu.org>, Richard Stallman writes: [snip] > The free software movement has always existed within Capitalism, and > fits within the Capitalist system. Our views have little in common > with Communism--we encourage business as long as it respects other > people's freedom to cooperate. Nothing could be more different from > the command economy that failed than the decentralized free software > community. > > Inaccurate though it is, our enemies sometimes call us Communists. > Perhaps because Communism is easier to attack than our real views. The former Soviet Union *was not* a communist system. Look up their *full* name. Your views are Socialist pure and simple. Didn't work for them. Sadly for you neither can you. [snip] -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bob Taylor Email: brtaylor@sanfelipe.com.mx | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a | | swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you | | can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell | | if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)| +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-04 9:06 ` Vincent Bernat 2003-01-04 21:04 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Vincent Bernat @ 2003-01-04 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Taylor; +Cc: rms, linux-kernel OoO En cette aube naissante du samedi 04 janvier 2003, vers 07:55, Bob Taylor <brtaylor@canela.sanfelipe.com.mx> disait: >> Inaccurate though it is, our enemies sometimes call us Communists. >> Perhaps because Communism is easier to attack than our real views. > The former Soviet Union *was not* a communist system. Look up > their *full* name. Your views are Socialist pure and simple. > Didn't work for them. Sadly for you neither can you. The former Soviet Union _was_ a communist system, whatever the full name was. Keywords of communism are collective propriety and class abolition. Everyone gets a work, everyone is paid the same amount. All these are not relevant for socialism (it may have been revelant hundred years ago and it may be the reason of the name, communism was initially a strong and extremist form of socialism). Moreover, today's European communism is just a strong form of socialism without these two dogmas (in France, none of the communist aspirant pushed one of these in the latest presidential elections). Many Europeans country are controlled by a socialist government (France was socialist until 2002, Germany is still socialist, UK is socialist [definitely not capitalist], etc). None of them stated that we have to give work for free. Your conception of communism and socialism is probably wrong. At least, I see absolutely no link between socialism and free software or GNU. I suppose you have a strong example which will tell us why you say that RMS' views are just socialism. -- MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode BABF10 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 9:06 ` Vincent Bernat @ 2003-01-04 21:04 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-04 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Taylor; +Cc: rms, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 06:55, Bob Taylor wrote: > The former Soviet Union *was not* a communist system. Look up > their *full* name. Your views are Socialist pure and simple. > Didn't work for them. Sadly for you neither can you. Actually it was very much what became called "communist" - as opposed to socialist which is closer to much of Europe, while the USA is very much a Marxist state. Now please take this OFF linux-kernel -- Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor @ 2003-01-05 18:39 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: >to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun, >and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not >take your advice. Funny you mention IBM here. I was always under the impression, that the IBM Open Source effort is mainly there to sell more boxes (which are well supported by the "good guys' operating system" because they offer and support open source GPL drivers. And then run their applications on it, which are not, I repeat, _NOT_ open sourced or free. So they give away a few drivers which doesn't earn any money anyway, get lots of good publicity and community support for free and also put a foot in the back of a company which they don't like but have to license/support their OS anyway (Microsoft). To my (and obviously to the clued people inside IBM) this sounds win-win. You can do this if you're IBM. Any before you ask why I wrote this: To me, by calling IBM "the good guys", you're activly promoting their non-free, close-sourced applications running on top of Linux (and their hardware). "Stallman called IBM the good guys. Buy their Websphere application suite running on Linux on eSeries Hardware. Film at 11". They're not an open source company. Neither are Sun (which also sells Hardware and applications; ironically their iPlanet stuff comes from Netscape) or Netscape (their Applications are now called "iPlanet" and come from Sun =:-) and with open sourcing their browser they didn't give away anything; they already lost the browser wars to Microsoft and noone could read their code anyway). But all three sucked you into saying "IBM, Sun and Netscape contributed to free software". But you don't understand their motive. Which is money. And the stuff that earns the money wasn't open sourced at all. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 22:06 ` Matthias Andree 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-01-04 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers On Thu, 02 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch > out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual > property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it > to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would > only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate? Keeping "intellectual property" to oneself is NOT what has made mankind leave the trees and build up civilization, medical care and all that stuff. Community is the cause, some people specialized in hunting or agriculture, some in building houses, whatever. I understand many existences currently depend on holding back information (be that publishers of scientific journals, be that entertainment; movies), and a lot of restructuring would be necessary if "intellectual property" was no longer protected. Maybe it takes one won GPL infringement law suit or two with adequate compensation paid to the plaintiff that companies get trust into GPL. It might not work for BitKeeper because that stuff needs too little support because it's too good (the old "hey, why are you installing inferior software at your clients' sites?" -- "to sell support afterwards") or something. ;-) Seriously: would NVIDIA really lose if they open sourced the drivers? It's their hardware that really bangs and that carries the bucks into their house. If someone is to reverse engineer what they're doing, they can also reverse engineer the driver first and then the chip. Of course, opensourcing means you can't cheat by just disabling functions in software and you won't get away too long with cheating benchmarks. Maybe people get the idea that cooperation is nicer than competition unless it leads to a monopoly that's exploited. > Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians > tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the > kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from > history. And globalization + capitalism makes it that eventually only a monopoly remains. Look at the oil market, look at Microsoft, look at the car market or even food or pharmacy. Mergers everywhere, leading to layoffs, raised gains, less competition. Ooops. It's useful to have people around that think in other directions, they make up for innovation. Linux is an offspring of such people's thoughts. And from what is to be heard about ATI, the Macrovision stuff for the TV outputs is one of the major reasons they are holding back source code. Now assume it's true and think about the driver situation again. The movie companies prevent you from improving ATI's TV output, ultimately. This is exaggerated, but it might help stepping back and looking at the WHOLE system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 22:06 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:10 ` Steven Barnhart ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:06:51PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > It's useful to have people around that think in other directions, they > make up for innovation. Linux is an offspring of such people's thoughts. Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux. All of the innovation is built on top of a copy of a commercial work. To date, nothing remotely as influential as Unix has come out of the open source community. Sure, there are a ton of copies of existing work, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about new things. I keep coming back to this because some of you refuse to get it. It costs A LOT OF MONEY TO MAKE NEW STUFF. Because we are stupid, we all make a lot of mistakes, we throw away those mistakes. The free software model doesn't generate 1/1000th of the money it would take to make progress continue at its current rate in the software world. Don't believe me? Cool. Go start a company, GPL your work, get back to me in 5 years and show me how well it worked. Other than distributions, where are those free software success stories? Oh, yes, Cygnus. They were doing about $25M/year or so when redhat bought them. Whoopee. And Red Hat, *with* Cygnus, is doing all of $80M/year. And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at a loss but going to make it up on volume. Now let's compare to some closed source companies: Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat Microsoft 370 Oracle 116 Sun 150 You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in a year. > This is exaggerated, but it might help stepping back and looking at the > WHOLE system. Indeed. Look over your shoulder. That's me, stepped way farther back than you. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 23:10 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-05 0:00 ` Chief Gadgeteer ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-04 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel > Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux. > All of the innovation is built on top of a copy of a commercial work. > > To date, nothing remotely as influential as Unix has come out of the > open source community. Sure, there are a ton of copies of existing work, > that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about new things. I keep > coming back to this because some of you refuse to get it. It costs A LOT > OF MONEY TO MAKE NEW STUFF. Because we are stupid, we all make a lot of > mistakes, we throw away those mistakes. The free software model doesn't > generate 1/1000th of the money it would take to make progress continue > at its current rate in the software world. Don't believe me? Cool. > Go start a company, GPL your work, get back to me in 5 years and show > me how well it worked. > > Other than distributions, where are those free software success stories? > Oh, yes, Cygnus. They were doing about $25M/year or so when redhat bought > them. Whoopee. And Red Hat, *with* Cygnus, is doing all of $80M/year. > And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial > success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and > by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at > a loss but going to make it up on volume. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. > It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in > a year. Something rms is totally ignoring..wonder how much the fsf makes oh wait, they probably believe in the "we don't need money if we are helping make software more free and available for the users" approach. Anyways this really needs to end. Bottom line..OSS is the best especially when battling MS. No one company controls something. Problem...if you care to make a hefty profit their may be some quirks you need to address. Don't get me wrong I use OSS as much as possible but I'd proably go with the "recover the developing costs before gpl'ng it" approach. Steven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:10 ` Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-05 0:00 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-05 0:26 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 10:14 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: lm On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 15:23, Larry McVoy wrote: > Now let's compare to some closed source companies: > > Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat > Microsoft 370 > Oracle 116 > Sun 150 These companies you mention make enormous profit margins as a result of 'protectionist laws', illegal business practices, and other non-ethical means (to varying degrees). They spend large sums of money to buy politicians to slant the playing field in their favor. The list goes on... As a general rule of thumb any corporation that is worth billions of dollars got there by exploiting a lot of somebodies along the way. I question the ethics and motivation of anyone who does something to "get rich". As opposed to someone who does something to benefit themselves and others and (due to the structure of modern society) make a comfortable living. I am no Stallman fan but it is fair to say that much regarding copyright, patent law (and especially the USPTO), and other "intellectual property" law/practice is broken. These things were broken by those motivated by the desire to "get rich". P.S. I am and have been self-employed the majority of my adult life. -- Chief Gadgeteer Elegant Innovations ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 0:00 ` Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-05 0:26 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 1:48 ` Chief Gadgeteer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gadgeteer, linux-kernel On 04 Jan 2003 17:00:08 -0700, Chief Gadgeteer wrote: >I question the ethics and motivation of anyone who does something to >"get rich". As opposed to someone who does something to benefit >themselves and others and (due to the structure of modern society) >make a comfortable living. Believe it or not, the easiest way to get rich is to provide people what they want at a reasonable price. The purpose of money is to provide an incentive for other people to do what you most need done. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 0:26 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 1:48 ` Chief Gadgeteer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-05 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 17:26, David Schwartz wrote: > Believe it or not, the easiest way to get rich is to provide people > what they want at a reasonable price. The purpose of money is to > provide an incentive for other people to do what you most need done. I agree. Thus, if there is a significant difference in our points of view it must be one of semantics as to what "get rich" means. /* opps, this got rather long winded */ My main objection is that those who seek to "get rich" then seek to get even richer by using their wealth to distort the playing field in their favor by various means. Or those who would claim innocence while exploiting non-ethical methods pioneered by others. The latter would be those who take the position that it is OK to leverage the concept of "intellectual property" because it is what all the wealthy folks are doing. When I was born (1961) something like 50% of the wealth in the US belonged to 40% of the people. Today, over 90% of the wealth belongs to less the 5% of the people. (The statistics in the last two sentences are vague memory, I do not stand behind their absolute accuracy.) When my father bought his home in 1970 for $21,000 he was making about $10 an hour as a highly skilled carpenter. Such a highly skilled carpenter in the same region makes not quite twice that today. However, the same home now sells for about $145,000 or more than seven times as much. For the majority of Americans these trends hold true i.e. stagnant wages while the cost of everything goes through the ceiling. The exceptions to this are those who work in fields that control the flow of information in some way. These methods include such means as lobbying successful for laws that promote or protect certain business models, limiting who might enter a field by raising the bar to entry, asserting "intellectual property" rights, and questionable business practices that lead to a market monopoly. I wonder how it looked to the rest of a society when a power elite emerged in the past? Would there not have been many parallels to what we are seeing today? Would they have not heard many of the same arguments being used today? Would not many of the influential dissenters have been bought off by giving them a vested interest in the emerging/existent power structure? As was commented elsewhere in this ridiculous thread, it is funny how one's tune changes once they too own a piece of intellectual property. -- Chief Gadgeteer Elegant Innovations ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:10 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-05 0:00 ` Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-05 10:14 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-05 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers > [lm@bitmover.com] > > And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial > success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and > by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at > a loss but going to make it up on volume. > > Now let's compare to some closed source companies: > > Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat > Microsoft 370 > Oracle 116 > Sun 150 > > You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. > It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in > a year. Warning: stdin:8: comparison is always false due to limited range of data. Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable, Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist on that correlation, though, I'd recommend you cancel your Wired magazine subscription as soon as possible, because continuing to read their stuff might put your health at stake. <g> -- Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 10:14 ` Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> writes: >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable, >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter such ridicioulous statements. % cd /home/mirror/RFC % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l 102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l So in terms of "RFC contributions" which are the established and accepted base on which to build the internet and "open software", the score is Microsoft Corporation vs. Red Hat Inc. 102 : 0 Some examples: rfc1877: PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol Extensions for Name Server Addresses rfc2069/2617: An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access Authentication rfc2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages rfc2338: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol rfc2342: IMAP4 Namespace rfc2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar) rfc2518/3253: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV rfc2565: Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport rfc2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (Yup. Microsoft) rfc2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" rfc2782: A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV) rfc2989: Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access (Microsoft. Sun. Cisco. Nokia.) Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 22:18 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 21:53 ` Bruce Harada 2003-01-06 21:05 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:40, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> writes: > > >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable, > >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their > >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist > > You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter > such ridicioulous statements. Your grep is faulty. Linux community members contribute to RFC's under their own names. Try again ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 22:18 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:58 ` Tomas Szepe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: >On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:40, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: >> Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> writes: >> >> >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable, >> >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their >> >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist >> >> You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter >> such ridicioulous statements. >Your grep is faulty. Linux community members contribute to RFC's under their own names. I looked for "RedHat / Red Hat". Not for "linux community members". That's what I wrote. I didn't look for "Microsoft employees that contribute to RFC's under their own names" either. The original statement was --- cut -- "Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their actual achievement in terms of software development." --- cut -- BTW: Microsofts' contributions to RFCs has to me the same "face value" as IBMs' contributions to the Linux kernel. It is an small piece of IP ( :-) ) given to get lots of leverage for closed/proprietary stuff. >Try again Nah. :-) Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 22:18 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:58 ` Tomas Szepe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-05 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henning P. Schmiedehausen; +Cc: Alan Cox, linux-kernel > [hps@intermeta.de] > > The original statement was > > --- cut --- > "Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about > their actual achievement in terms of software development." > --- cut --- And it holds true, because 1) A huge part of RedHat's work in software development goes into free (as in beer) software, which skews the better_product<->higher_revenue correlation vigorously. 2) better_product<->higher_revenue doesn't work terribly well when the market is dominated by a monopoly, does it? 3) Microsoft doesn't only sell software. ... Don't make me come up with more. Larry's comparison is totally laughable if it is to support the thesis "Microsoft has achieved much more in software development than RedHat." -- Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 21:53 ` Bruce Harada 2003-01-06 21:05 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bruce Harada @ 2003-01-05 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:40:32 +0000 (UTC) "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de> wrote: > rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages Yeah, and what a hash they made of that one. They wrote it themselves, and they *still* ignore it... what hope do we have of them observing standards that they didn't write? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 21:53 ` Bruce Harada @ 2003-01-06 21:05 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2003-01-06 22:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Ranjeet Shetye @ 2003-01-06 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Five years back, when I was working on IPSec, MS wanted to subvert IPSec deployment; replace it with L2TP (PPTP + L2F). I almost thought that their IPSec clients were purposely and "randomly" faulty when it come to interoperability. Drove the rest of us nuts while I guess their minions in redmond were working on the real version of the ipsec client. That's how unappetizing any interaction with MS was. MS might have their names in the RFCs; doesn't mean that they really contribute positively to the community. Ranjeet Shetye Senior Software Engineer > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of > Henning P. Schmiedehausen > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:41 PM > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed > source drivers? > > > Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> writes: > > >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the > incomparable, > >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ > about their > >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should > you insist > > You might simply open your eyes and look around you before > you utter such ridicioulous statements. > > % cd /home/mirror/RFC > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l > 102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [ > "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l > > > So in terms of "RFC contributions" which are the established > and accepted base on which to build the internet and "open > software", the score is > > Microsoft Corporation vs. Red Hat Inc. > 102 : 0 > > Some examples: > > rfc1877: PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol > Extensions for Name Server Addresses > rfc2069/2617: An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access Authentication > rfc2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals > rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages > rfc2338: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol > rfc2342: IMAP4 Namespace > rfc2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object > Specification (iCalendar) > rfc2518/3253: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV > rfc2565: Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport > rfc2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 > (Yup. Microsoft) > rfc2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" > rfc2782: A DNS RR for specifying the location of > services (DNS SRV) > rfc2989: Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for > Network Access (Microsoft. Sun. Cisco. Nokia.) > > > Regards > Henning > > > -- > Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- > Geschaeftsfuehrer > INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de > > Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de > D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in the body of a message to > majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 21:05 ` Ranjeet Shetye @ 2003-01-06 22:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-06 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ranjeet Shetye; +Cc: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1971 bytes --] On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:05:59 PST, Ranjeet Shetye <ranjeet.shetye@zultys.com> said: > MS might have their names in the RFCs; doesn't mean that they really > contribute positively to the community. In addition, there's some slanted statistics being done here by Hedding.... > > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of > > Henning P. Schmiedehausen > > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:41 PM > > % cd /home/mirror/RFC > > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if > > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l > > 102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log > > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if > > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l > > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [ > > "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l Hmm.. Zorn is an author 20 times, Aboba 16 (usually with Zorn), Huitema 15. And of those 102, at least 8 are documenting Microsoft-specific things like its CHAP and Kerberos extensions. So leave them out of the count, and we see that just 2-3 guys are a third of it right there. And Microsoft employs how many people? That's some *HUGE* dent in their manpower supply.... Meanwhile, looking in the MAINTAINERS file, I see 343 M: tags, of which only 12 are redhat.com addresses (and only 7 unique ones at that). And Redhat isn't primarily a development company, they're a packaging company. The vast amount of Linux development would be elsewhere - it would be fairer to compare RedHat's RFC output with the RFC output of Microsoft's packaging and shipping department..... Now how many RFC's has Ted T'so written? And how much has he done for Linux? Of course, he doesn't use a redhat.com address, so he doesn't count... Naughty thing, those statistics - people keep trying to misuse them. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-05 10:14 ` Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 19:28 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com 2003-01-05 22:13 ` Mark Mielke 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: linux-kernel, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux. This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to catch up. The primary purpose of GNU is the freedom to cooperate. Innovation is nice, but secondary. We followed the design of Unix because that was the most reliable way to produce a working portable system. We made it compatible with Unix so that many users could easily switch to it. We deliberately avoided innovative approaches in many cases--the noteworthy exception being the GNU Hurd. (Perhaps that exception was a bad decision.) Although innovation is not our primary focus, there is a fair amount of innovation in GNU packages. GNU Emacs is better than any previous Emacs. (The first Emacs was another innovation in our community.) GCC was the first portable truly optimizing compiler, and the first optimizing compiler that supported debugging. Autoconf was an innovation in portability technology. Looking elsewhere in our community, Perl and Python seem to be innovative; the X Window System was too. There are surely more examples that I don't know of. You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and Linux exist because of people who have different priorities. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 19:28 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com 2003-01-05 22:13 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-05 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel Dude, Give it up. No one buys the GNU/Linux thing, and on LKML, it's really just noise. My understanding was that you acknowledged that the kernel was "Linux" (or "Freax" as I once heard Linus refer to it on the radio, though it was a professor of his that made him change the name, not an FTP admin) and that most "Linux" distro's come bundled with 95% or so GNU software. So, please - go join the Slackare, Debian, Red SHat, Mandrake, Connectiva, etc mailinglists and rant about that crap, but please leave if off of LKML - the signal to noise ratio is bad enough here without your "help". Also, I didn't see your answer to the question of weither hurd should be called Linux/Hurd or not - given that you say much of what the rest of us call "Linux" is, in your opinion, a derived work of GNU, and given that Hurd borrows large chunks of Linux code, would you state your opinion on the name for the record? Thanks. Regards, Scott Lockwood http://geekizoid.com/ http://sporks-r-us.com/ -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:34 PM To: lm@bitmover.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; mark@mark.mielke.cc; billh@gnuppy.monkey.org; paul@clubi.ie; riel@conectiva.com.br; Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux. This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to catch up. The primary purpose of GNU is the freedom to cooperate. Innovation is nice, but secondary. We followed the design of Unix because that was the most reliable way to produce a working portable system. We made it compatible with Unix so that many users could easily switch to it. We deliberately avoided innovative approaches in many cases--the noteworthy exception being the GNU Hurd. (Perhaps that exception was a bad decision.) Although innovation is not our primary focus, there is a fair amount of innovation in GNU packages. GNU Emacs is better than any previous Emacs. (The first Emacs was another innovation in our community.) GCC was the first portable truly optimizing compiler, and the first optimizing compiler that supported debugging. Autoconf was an innovation in portability technology. Looking elsewhere in our community, Perl and Python seem to be innovative; the X Window System was too. There are surely more examples that I don't know of. You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and Linux exist because of people who have different priorities. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 19:28 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-05 22:13 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-05 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, linux-kernel, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:34:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux. > This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that > design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are > starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to > catch up. You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above are rather assuming. > You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year. > This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and > Linux exist because of people who have different priorities. Development costs resources. GNU has benefitted substantially from resources offered for free by people that have other (usually non-GPL or non-open source) means of putting food on the table. Respect this. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-05 22:13 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: lm, linux-kernel, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above are rather assuming. I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN 2003-01-07 13:39 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:31 ` Paulo Andre' 2003-01-06 17:39 ` Bill Huey 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: RIZEN @ 2003-01-06 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel Richard, In the linked document, it is stated "Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system". I only wish to clarify, how can GNU be an operating system without the kernel? Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to pick a fight of any nature. It just seems to be inconsistant with the terms being set forth in the article. Shouldn't it be referenced as the "GNU programs" or "GNU components" when talking about GNU without a kernel. Regards, J.S.Souza -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:13 AM To: mark@mark.mielke.cc Cc: lm@bitmover.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; billh@gnuppy.monkey.org; paul@clubi.ie; riel@conectiva.com.br; Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above are rather assuming. I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 12/17/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 12/17/2002 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN @ 2003-01-07 13:39 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-07 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rizen; +Cc: linux-kernel In the linked document, it is stated "Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system". I only wish to clarify, how can GNU be an operating system without the kernel? GNU was not complete in 1992--we were still working on the kernel of GNU. (Today the GNU kernel works but needs a few more features to be really good to use.) It would be more precise to say that "Linux is normally used in combination with the nearly all of the GNU operating system." But that sentence would be very clumsy. Instead we state these details later on in the page. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN @ 2003-01-06 17:31 ` Paulo Andre' 2003-01-06 17:39 ` Bill Huey 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paulo Andre' @ 2003-01-06 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you > influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having > some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above > are rather assuming. > > I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and > then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing > most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for > the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working > long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead. Richard, I have the utmost respect for your earlier efforts which were of unquestionable importance for the dawn of the free software movement. Can't say the same for your sick GNU/Linux rant though. But considering this is the linux-kernel _development_ list (let alone the fact that this discussion stinks) I do think it would be a much better move if you and your zealots would go away and (perhaps) actually go do some CODING on your GNU/Hurd/whatever instead. All this ranting is more than likely why it got started in 1990 and it's still not near finished. Paulo Andre' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN 2003-01-06 17:31 ` Paulo Andre' @ 2003-01-06 17:39 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-07 13:40 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-06 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, Bill Huey (Hui) On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 12:13:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and > then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing > most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for > the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working > long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead. > > See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU. I hate to say it to you, but that URL reads like the typical BSD arguments that I get, where embittered engineers whine about how a kernel is key to and entire software development process. Both HURD and the BSDs are simply irrelevant to the entire GNU/GPL phenomenon as we know it and has been usurpted completely by Linux and all the applications support that has come as a result of its popularity. I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement of free software like Linux did ? That's because they lack several components: 1) Social and political awareness. 2) Timeliness and ultimately completeness (useability). BSD has (2) but lacks (1). HURD lacks (2) and because of that, it can't achieve (1). Linux has both and was done in an open enough way that it not just gave the foundation to the entire GPL movement as we know it, but also showed the community that a large scale project like this has HUGE political, social and economic implications that were previous unimagineable. HURD and the old school GPL folks are irrelevant because it never had the scale or impact of Linux, which is why Linux is pretty much it's own phenomenon outside of GPL as you've stated it. I mean, you've got to accept that and give folks credit for achieving these things. bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 17:39 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-07 13:40 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-07 15:10 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-07 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: billh; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, billh > See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU. I hate to say it to you, but that URL reads like the typical BSD arguments that I get, where embittered engineers whine about how a kernel is key to and entire software development process. Both HURD and the BSDs are simply irrelevant to the entire GNU/GPL phenomenon as we know it It is true that the Hurd is mostly irrelevant to the success of GNU/Linux and the free software community today. Nearly everyone who uses GNU uses it with Linux, very few with the Hurd. I use it with Linux. But the fact that you focus on the Hurd, when the Hurd is not the issue, suggests a possible misunderstanding. Are you identifying the success of GNU with the success of the Hurd? The Hurd is just one part of GNU, just one of many programs we developed for GNU. The success of GNU doesn't require the Hurd. Some GNU packages have failed completely, and been abandoned. You have probably never heard of them. But the GNU system overall is a great success despite that. I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement of free software like Linux did ? Linux alone didn't do this. It was the combination of GNU and Linux that did this. I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps it's because they became available some years later. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 13:40 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-07 15:10 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-07 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, Bill Huey (Hui) On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:40:27AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > But the fact that you focus on the Hurd, when the Hurd is not the > issue, suggests a possible misunderstanding. Are you identifying the > success of GNU with the success of the Hurd? The Hurd is just one part > of GNU, just one of many programs we developed for GNU. The success > of GNU doesn't require the Hurd. It's not Hurd that I'm criticizing as much as the over emphasis on any single ideological entity and the amorphous definition of GNU in multipule contexts, social, technological, etc... > Some GNU packages have failed completely, and been abandoned. You > have probably never heard of them. But the GNU system overall is a > great success despite that. > > I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement > of free software like Linux did ? > > Linux alone didn't do this. It was the combination of GNU and Linux > that did this. But largely, IMO, because of the uprising of the Internet as a new kind of social communication and collaboration along with a GPL style license to protect property from being outright exploited. It's the combination of all those things that makes it unique and very dangerous. > I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps > it's because they became available some years later. I think the failures of the BSDs in this area are related to the lack of social consciousness needed to create a kind of technology that has some protective intellectual statement behind it to solidify it as a legitimate movement. You don't need much of that activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political, social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, etc...) really paved the way for the entire open source community as we understand it. I'm saying it's not just simply the intellectual existence of GPL/GNU that resulted from in this success, but a kind of convergence of multipule social phenomenons that brought us GNU as we know it. The definitions we have of "it" are dry and meaningless. Linux, as a social force, removes a certain cultural pollution and inaccessibility about technology, (as these perceptions are created in late 80s from either large corporations or DARPA) that deconstructs this mythos and brings into question something that's more directly controllable and believeable by folks like us. This is straight out of Nietzsche's culture criticism about both religion, power and how nihilistic cultural values, the unbelieveability of cultural beliefs, must be reborn and become believeable again. That's why I do open source stuff. I'm just about annoying an idealist as they get while still being a legitimate nerd since it really speaks to me, how I feel about technology and how it effects my career/life. It's a bit heavy, but that's all. :) bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 15:26 ` yodaiken 2003-01-08 18:10 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: billh; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, billh It's not Hurd that I'm criticizing as much as the over emphasis on any single ideological entity and the amorphous definition of GNU in multipule contexts, social, technological, etc... The definition of GNU is simple: GNU is an operating system. In 1983 I announced the plan to develop a Unix-like operating system that would be entirely free software, and I gave the system the name GNU. >From this concept come other derived concepts. For instance, developing the system is a project. That's the GNU Project. Carrying out such a project involves writing lots of programs. Programs that have been developed for GNU or contributed by their developers specifically to GNU are called GNU programs, GNU packages, or collectively GNU software. (Those three terms are equivalent.) The manuals developed for GNU or contributed specifically to GNU are GNU manuals. We wrote some licenses to use on GNU programs and manuals. These are the GNU licenses. GNU is also associated with a movement and a philosophy, but we don't call them "GNU". We call them the Free Software Movement, and its philosophy. Nonetheless, the main place people come across them is in connection with GNU, and the success of the GNU Project is the best way to refute the common presupposition that idealism like ours is impractical. So we want people to know of the system as GNU. We're looking for a good term to use for "programs released under GNU licenses", because we want to educate the community that this is not the same thing as free software (there are other free software licenses) and not the same thing as GNU software (releasing a program under a GNU license does not imply that you did it as part of the GNU Project, as witness for example Linux). If you have a suggestion, and a few of your friends like it, please email it to me. Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08 15:26 ` yodaiken 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 18:10 ` Ranjeet Shetye 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: yodaiken @ 2003-01-08 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:20AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > The definition of GNU is simple: GNU is an operating system. In 1983 > I announced the plan to develop a Unix-like operating system that > would be entirely free software, and I gave the system the name GNU. Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as synonyms in the research literature. If you open a textbook on "operating systems" or look at the contents of the proceedings of Operating Systems conferences, you will not find many discussions of text editors, compilers, or other programming tools. Generally, the operating system is considered to stop at the system call interface. One of the revolutionary features of UNIX was that it was relatively agnostic about "tools". Oddly enough, the two most active campaigners for expanding the definition of operating system are the FSF and Microsoft. I think that Richard's usage of "operating system" is based on Digital Equipment Corp. terminology from the prehistorical times of releases on tape. > We're looking for a good term to use for "programs released under GNU > licenses", because we want to educate the community that this is not > the same thing as free software (there are other free software (1) GNU Programming System. or (2) GPL Programming Layer You should be able to get US military funding because these are recursive TLAs. The GPL expansion to "GPL Programming Layer" so that GPL becomes a context sensitive recursive TLA should be enough to get an entire Homeland Security program dedicated to the project. Please feel free to use this idea without restriction. In fact, this is released under "I don't want to have anything to do with it" license. victor -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com 1+ 505 838 9109 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 15:26 ` yodaiken @ 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:40 ` David D. Hagood 2003-01-10 0:02 ` yodaiken 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken; +Cc: billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as synonyms in the research literature. The term "operating system" has been used in both ways for a long time. When people speak about the "Linux operating system," most of them mean the larger GNU/Linux system--they are not using "operating system" to mean "kernel". If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion. That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was developed and by whom. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:40 ` David D. Hagood 2003-01-10 0:02 ` yodaiken 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David D. Hagood @ 2003-01-09 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel Richard Stallman wrote: > If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the > larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion. Might I suggest the term "operation environment" - thus things like the kernel, and "got-to-have-it-or-we-no-go" bits like libc and the dynamic loader system are "the operating system", and "we-can-live-without-it-but-who-wants-to" bits like the browser, editor, HTTP/FTP/etc. libraries are part of the "operating environment". > That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name > should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was > developed and by whom. > OT: Thank you, Richard, for what you've done for the industry. My first exposure to Gnu was on the Atari ST, where an individual sent me GCC on about 20 floppy disks. Been hooked ever since - I've often thought the GPL would make a great "Wonder of the World" in FreeCiv... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:40 ` David D. Hagood @ 2003-01-10 0:02 ` yodaiken 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: yodaiken @ 2003-01-10 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: yodaiken, billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as > synonyms in the research literature. > > The term "operating system" has been used in both ways for a long > time. When people speak about the "Linux operating system," most of > them mean the larger GNU/Linux system--they are not using "operating > system" to mean "kernel". My point was just to note that people who look for information about emacs or gcc in the proceedings of the OSDI or SIGOPS Symposium are going to be disappointed. > If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the > larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion. Programming environment. I say "Gnu tools" . > That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name > should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was > developed and by whom. The bad news is that many of our customers now ask us if we support "8.0" or "7.3". For them "Red Hat" is the name of the system. Bob Young's ketchup vision has absorbed the world. I'm sympathetic, but if there is anyone out there who has contributed free software and gets full credit and no hate mail, I'd be very surprised. Envy is emulation adapted to the meanest capacity. Ambrose Bierce -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com 1+ 505 838 9109 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-10 0:02 ` yodaiken @ 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-11 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken; +Cc: yodaiken, billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel > If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the > larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion. Programming environment. There is a lot more to a system than the kernel and programming environment. Consider GNOME or KDE, Mutt, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and GNU Chess. They are not part of the programming environment. I say "Gnu tools" . Some GNU packages are tools, but most of them are not. If you want to talk specifically about the GNU packages that are tools, could you please take care with the wording so that readers won't assume it means that all GNU packages are tools? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 15:26 ` yodaiken @ 2003-01-08 18:10 ` Ranjeet Shetye 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Ranjeet Shetye @ 2003-01-08 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Richard, The last time I tried installing the GNU Operating System without the Linux Kernel, it wouldn't boot. Dont know why. I had my /bin/ls and my /bin/make installed but they just wouldn't boot the computer. I finally installed a Windows 98 kernel to help the GNU operating system (i.e. ls and make) and now I can happily state that my computer is running a GNU Operating System with a Windows 98 kernel. Doesn't that sound silly ??????? Know why ? cos (Operating System == kernel), in this case, its Linux, and the GNU stuff refers to the utilities only. Mind you, they are VERY IMPORTANT utilities, but utilities nonetheless. To call them an operating system is ridiculous, as I think I proved in the earlier part of my mail. Ranjeet Shetye. Senior Software Engineer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 9:04 ` OT Naming. was: " Nils Petter Vaskinn 2003-01-08 11:53 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Bill Huey 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: billh; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, billh activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political, social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, etc...) When you say "Linux" here, do you mean the kernel, or the whole GNU/Linux system? With all due respect, I think you may not have answered this question for yourself, because the people that you name are people who worked on the kernel, but the success that you talk about is the success of the whole system. (No kernel alone could have had this effect.) The practice of referring to the whole system by the same name as the kernel alone leads to constant confusion between the two. You will often see statements that "Linux is a Unix-like operating system, like Solaris or FreeBSD, which is released under the GNU GPL." That is false regardless of what meaning you assign to "Linux". The only way to avoid confusion is to stop calling the whole system by the name used for the kernel. really paved the way for the entire open source community as we understand it. Our community is the free software community; it was built by the idealism of the free software movement. Like any community, it contains people with different views. Nowadays many of the people in our community support the open source movement. The open source advocates are legitimate members of the community, and some have contributed to it. They have a right to form a movement to promote their views, but that movement was started only in 1998, long after the community existed. Their movement did not build the community, and it should not be named after them. Speaking of which, your ideas seem to have a lot in common with the free software movement. I wonder if you thought that the open source movement was the only one and that we all support it. (Many inaccurate articles give that impression.) If you read about the free software movement, you might decide we are closer to your views. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and in particular http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for an explanation of the difference between the two movements. We and they have similar practices, which is why we and they can work together some of the time, but what we say about it is very different from what they say. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08 9:04 ` Nils Petter Vaskinn 2003-01-08 11:23 ` Hacksaw 2003-01-12 11:56 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 11:53 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Bill Huey 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Nils Petter Vaskinn @ 2003-01-08 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 09:00, Richard Stallman wrote: > The practice of referring to the whole system by the same name as the > kernel alone leads to constant confusion between the two. You will > often see statements that "Linux is a Unix-like operating system, like > Solaris or FreeBSD, which is released under the GNU GPL." That is > false regardless of what meaning you assign to "Linux". The only way > to avoid confusion is to stop calling the whole system by the name > used for the kernel. This is what I understand is the COMMON usage: linux refers to the kernel plus the GNU software, a complete os linux-kernel refers to the kernel (which is why this is the linux-kernel mailinglist not the linux mailinglist) I have not seen the word linux used to describe an os built around the linux kernel but without the GNU software, it may be referred to as "linux based" but if they called it linux users wouldn't get what they expected and complain. The confusion you describe doesn't appear to exist, and making everybody start calling the kernel "Linux" and the os "GNU/Linux" will at best change nothing (practically, of course it may improve some peoples egos) and possibly cause confusion. The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical one, don't try to disguise it. regards NP ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 9:04 ` OT Naming. was: " Nils Petter Vaskinn @ 2003-01-08 11:23 ` Hacksaw 2003-01-08 12:09 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-01-12 11:56 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Hacksaw @ 2003-01-08 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nils Petter Vaskinn; +Cc: rms, linux-kernel >The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical >one, don't try to disguise it. I used to agree with this, and as far as politics, I do. However, a practical reason to call it GNU/Linux just occurred to me: the ABI. Linux is a kernel. It runs on a variety of platforms. You certainly must differentiate between a program for Linux on StrongARM and one for Linux on x86. To use a kernel one makes calls into it via a system call mechanism. In the case of the vast majority of Linux installations, that is done via glibc. Not for kicks is that 'g' there. A system with a linux kernel using a different API will likely have a different ABI for it's programs. This will need to be accounted for at some point. Forget all the tools for the moment, and just think about what makes the program ABI. Is there any vendor out there now who's shipping something other than glibc with their Linux distribution? I bet there is someone, probably in the embedded market. Of course, I bow to human nature. People will continue to make references to Linux meaning the OS, and never mention the qualifiers, until it becomes an issue. Here's to looking forward to the day when it does. :-) -- We begin again, constantly. http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 11:23 ` Hacksaw @ 2003-01-08 12:09 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-01-09 9:08 ` Hacksaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-01-08 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Hacksaw <hacksaw@hacksaw.org> writes: > >The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical > >one, don't try to disguise it. > > I used to agree with this, and as far as politics, I do. However, a > practical reason to call it GNU/Linux just occurred to me: the ABI. > > Linux is a kernel. It runs on a variety of platforms. You certainly > must differentiate between a program for Linux on StrongARM and one > for Linux on x86. To use a kernel one makes calls into it via a > system call mechanism. In the case of the vast majority of Linux > installations, that is done via glibc. Not for kicks is that 'g' > there. > > A system with a linux kernel using a different API will likely have a > different ABI for it's programs. The functions in glibc that you are referring to are specified by ANSI/ISO C and POSIX standards. If a system doesn't comply to these it's broken. Yes, I consider systems like MSWindows broken. Well, there's VMS, of course. I'll don't know what standards it follows. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 12:09 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2003-01-09 9:08 ` Hacksaw 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Hacksaw @ 2003-01-09 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: linux-kernel >The functions in glibc that you are referring to are specified by >ANSI/ISO C and POSIX standards. If a system doesn't comply to these >i It's a POSIX conforming API, but the ABI is provided by linking against glibc. It's unlikely that you could easily sub in a new libc easily, especially if the program makes use of any GNU extensions. -- When we have nothing to say, it is very hard to say nothing. When we have nothing to do, it is very hard to do nothing. http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 9:04 ` OT Naming. was: " Nils Petter Vaskinn 2003-01-08 11:23 ` Hacksaw @ 2003-01-12 11:56 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-12 18:27 ` OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closedsource drivers? Michael D. Shannon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-12 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: nils.petter.vaskinn; +Cc: linux-kernel linux refers to the kernel plus the GNU software, a complete os linux-kernel refers to the kernel (which is why this is the linux-kernel mailinglist not the linux mailinglist) If this convention were general, it would be less confusing (though still misleading and still unfair). In practice, though references to "Linux" can mean either one, and you can never tell which it is unless you can guess from what is being said. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closedsource drivers? 2003-01-12 11:56 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-12 18:27 ` Michael D. Shannon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Michael D. Shannon @ 2003-01-12 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel >>linux refers to the kernel plus the GNU software, a complete os >>linux-kernel refers to the kernel (which is why this is the linux-kernel >>mailinglist not the linux mailinglist) > > If this convention were general, it would be less confusing (though > still misleading and still unfair). In practice, though references to > "Linux" can mean either one, and you can never tell which it is unless > you can guess from what is being said. Given that this is the Linux Kernel Mailing List (lkml), as opposed to the Linux Mailing List, I fail to see how anyone subscribed could fail to note the distinction. You are preaching to the wrong people. When people on this list talk about Linux, they are talking about Linux. They are talking about the kernel itself. Unless you'd like to claim credit on behalf of GNU for inspiring the kernel, as well? (straw man, feel free to ignore) (inflammatory) Now, I've noticed that everyone else involved in this discussion is also submitting and commenting on patches to the kernel source, while you have done nothing but preach about how awesome GNU is. Fine. GNU rulz, man. Now, do you actually have any Linux Kernel subject matter? -Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 9:04 ` OT Naming. was: " Nils Petter Vaskinn @ 2003-01-08 11:53 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-08 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, Bill Huey (Hui) On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:22AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but > the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political, > social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox, > Stephen Tweedie, etc...) > > When you say "Linux" here, do you mean the kernel, or the whole > GNU/Linux system? With all due respect, I think you may not have Linux itself, yes, it's definitely a special project in the context of GNU and deserve to have it's identity preserved even outside of the main core of GNU/GPL. It's special case all around. > answered this question for yourself, because the people that you name > are people who worked on the kernel, but the success that you talk > about is the success of the whole system. (No kernel alone could have > had this effect.) Those folks were on the forefront of this and have special historical status as a result of this. > Like any community, it contains people with different views. Nowadays > many of the people in our community support the open source movement. > The open source advocates are legitimate members of the community, and > some have contributed to it. They have a right to form a movement to > promote their views, but that movement was started only in 1998, long > after the community existed. Their movement did not build the > community, and it should not be named after them. Yes, but they were on the forefront of this and have special status and should be held seperate from GNU/GPL itself. > Speaking of which, your ideas seem to have a lot in common with the > free software movement. I wonder if you thought that the open source > movement was the only one and that we all support it. (Many > inaccurate articles give that impression.) If you read about the free > software movement, you might decide we are closer to your views. The difference that respect about this project is that, although it's has GPL roots, it has been a refactoring foundation for the entire open source community. The rules were rewritten after the success of this project. It's not ment to be a disrespect to you and what you've done certainly, but it's definitely smashed the scale and scope of free software projects. Like when Metallica hit the Metal scene in 1984, it was a bit sterile prior to that. :) > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and in particular > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for an > explanation of the difference between the two movements. We and they > have similar practices, which is why we and they can work together > some of the time, but what we say about it is very different from > what they say. I'll read it again. :) bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-08 11:53 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Bill Huey @ 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: billh; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, billh There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined effort.) These people are legitimate members of our community, and they have a right to form a movement to promote their views; but their views didn't build the community, so it should not be named after their movement. It's not ment to be a disrespect to you and what you've done certainly, but it's definitely smashed the scale and scope of free software projects. The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of the events. Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way? The practice of calling the system "Linux" leads to and encourages the misinterpretation. It leads people to suppose that the most important part of the development of the system must have occurred when Linus Torvalds started to work on it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-10 0:12 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-09 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > There is no such thing as an open source community. Poof! And millions of people disappear at the bidding of the One True God, Richard Stallman. Not. > The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but Please remember that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds and your inclusion of "Linux" in "GNU/Linux" is covered by trademark law. Have you cleared that use with Linus? > attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of > the events. > > Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way? Maybe because their belief is a lot more valid than your belief? Oh, since I have your attention, when are you going to issue a press release officially renaming Hurd to Linux/Hurd? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-11 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: billh, mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel > There is no such thing as an open source community. Poof! And millions of people disappear at the bidding of the One True God, Richard Stallman. These people exist and are part of our community. (I said that before.) They have the right to their views, and the right to form a movement to promote it. They have the right to call it the open source movement. All that is simply the exercise of political freedom. What they do not have a right to do is rename our community after their own movement as if they had built it. That is Orwellian rewriting of history. People can honorably disagree with our views, but they can't honorably deny our achievements. Please remember that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds and your inclusion of "Linux" in "GNU/Linux" is covered by trademark law. Have you cleared that use with Linus? Linus announced years ago that people can use the term "Linux" any way they wish as long as it does not close off the name space. Legally, therefore, this is allowed. But there is still the issue of what is right to do. It would't be wrong to call the system just "GNU", since it's more GNU than anything else, but it seems ungentlemanly to cite only GNU and ask people to stop giving Linus a share of the credit. I'd rather call it "GNU/Linux" and cite his contribution also. However, if he asks us to stop citing Linux in this way, we will heed his wishes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-10 0:12 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com 2003-01-10 10:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-10 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: mark, lm, linux-kernel, paul, riel, billh Double Plus Good Richard, Double Plus Good. "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed." -- George Orwell's 1984 -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:13 PM To: billh@gnuppy.monkey.org Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc; lm@bitmover.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; paul@clubi.ie; riel@conectiva.com.br; billh@gnuppy.monkey.org Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined effort.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-10 0:12 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-10 10:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-10 15:36 ` Linux KERNEL mailinglist! Jan Harkes 2003-01-10 16:10 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Jeff Randall 4 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-10 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: >There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who >founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support >it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free Open Source != Free Software. Else Microsoft would be part of the "free software community", because they open up their sources, too. There is "free software (free as in free beer)" which is not open sourced. As you build most of your assumptions on this, this is where you whole logic breaks down. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Linux KERNEL mailinglist! 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-10 10:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-10 15:36 ` Jan Harkes 2003-01-10 16:10 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Jeff Randall 4 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jan Harkes @ 2003-01-10 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but > attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of > the events. Can we please end this discussion. Go harass cygwin users that they should call their systems GNU/Windows. Or the FreeBSD/NetBSD guys that use a gcc compiler. I ran some FSF tools on my Amiga, does that make it a GNU/Amiga? Same for the guy who got gcc on 20 floppies for his GNU/Atari ST. How about all those Solaris and Irix systems where administrators installed GNU tools in /usr/local (GNU/Solaris and GNU/Irix?). This mailinglist is about the linux _kernel_, there must be more apropriate lists for this (/dev/null comes to mind). Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-10 15:36 ` Linux KERNEL mailinglist! Jan Harkes @ 2003-01-10 16:10 ` Jeff Randall 2003-01-12 11:54 ` Richard Stallman 4 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Jeff Randall @ 2003-01-10 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who > founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support > it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free > software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined > effort.) > > These people are legitimate members of our community, and they have a > right to form a movement to promote their views; but their views > didn't build the community, so it should not be named after their > movement. They are only part of YOUR community if they want to be part. Otherwise, they are members of a seperate communuity that may or may not have similar goals as yours. > Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way? The practice > of calling the system "Linux" leads to and encourages the > misinterpretation. It leads people to suppose that the most important > part of the development of the system must have occurred when Linus > Torvalds started to work on it. I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux. To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you provided such as gcc and glibc. It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been involved with Linux a long time the wrong way. -- randall@uph.com "It's a big world and you can hit it with any airplane." -- Flying, August 2000, Page 90. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-10 16:10 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Jeff Randall @ 2003-01-12 11:54 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-12 18:58 ` Jeff Randall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-12 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: randall; +Cc: linux-kernel I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux. I think we started in 1994 (although mostly privately until 1996). To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you provided such as gcc and glibc. If you believe this is a "project that we didn't contribute to", it's natural you would believe the rest. That's why calling the system "Linux" is so unfair. We started developing this system, and we developed more of it than anyone else; but thinking of it as "Linux" leads people to focus on the part that we didn't do, and devalue our part. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.) That's why we can never go along with calling the system "Linux". No matter how many people do that, we will keep on pointing out why that is wrong. It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been involved with Linux a long time the wrong way. There are people who get angry at us for correcting the mistaken picture, but in the long run it would be self-defeating (as well as dishonorable) to bow to such pressure. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#alienate. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-12 11:54 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-12 18:58 ` Jeff Randall 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jeff Randall @ 2003-01-12 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:54:59AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or > GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux. > > I think we started in 1994 (although mostly privately until 1996). I personally started using Linux in March of 1992 -- Version 0.94 IIRC. Linux 2.0 was out by 1996 was it not? I stand by my 'well established' comment above. > To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal > credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the > name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you > provided such as gcc and glibc. > > If you believe this is a "project that we didn't contribute to", it's > natural you would believe the rest. That's why calling the system > "Linux" is so unfair. We started developing this system, and we > developed more of it than anyone else; but thinking of it as "Linux" > leads people to focus on the part that we didn't do, and devalue our > part. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.) > > That's why we can never go along with calling the system "Linux". No matter > how many people do that, we will keep on pointing out why that is wrong. You developed tools and packages that you intended to put into a system that you have called the Hurd. While you were developing all of the various pieces for that system (Hurd) other people were using those packages on various other systems -- I used gcc under SunOS and Dynix long before I'd head of Linux.. And I used more GNU packages than vendor packages on most of the HP-UX boxes I administrated after college.. You have said in the past that that doesn't make those GNU/HP-UX Boxes... That the various packages and tools developed to support your project (Hurd) were used by another project developing a seperate operating system does not give you the right to name that seperate operating system. Those people who put together all the various pieces and made it work call it Linux. I'm going to agree with Larry here. If you're going to insist that people call it GNU/Linux, then you had better start referring to your operating system as Linux/Hurd if you want to retain any credibility. > It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but > it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been > involved with Linux a long time the wrong way. > > There are people who get angry at us for correcting the mistaken > picture, but in the long run it would be self-defeating (as well as > dishonorable) to bow to such pressure. See > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#alienate. People get angry because you're being disrespectful and presumptuous to try and tell people who know exactly what the order of events are that you and your foundation were actively involved in developing Linux. That was not the case and you know it. Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I don't feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity. (I'm done with this thread now.) -- randall@uph.com "It's a big world and you can hit it with any airplane." -- Flying, August 2000, Page 90. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-12 18:58 ` Jeff Randall @ 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: randall; +Cc: linux-kernel You developed tools and packages that you intended to put into a system that you have called the Hurd. Not quite. The system in question is "GNU". The Hurd is just part of the kernel of GNU; the other GNU packages are not part of the Hurd. I'm going to agree with Larry here. If you're going to insist that people call it GNU/Linux, then you had better start referring to your operating system as Linux/Hurd if you want to retain any credibility. I've already explained why this is bad logic. Will my explanation have "credibility"? That's asking whether other people will grasp the point. I think it is not useful to digress into speculation about what other people will think about an issue. It is better to stick to the issues themselves. People get angry because you're being disrespectful and presumptuous to try and tell people who know exactly what the order of events are that you and your foundation were actively involved in developing Linux. That was not the case and you know it. If you mean the whole system that is sometimes called Linux, we began developing it in 1984. Perhaps you've defined the "development of Linux" to include only that part of the development which began with integrating the kernel, Linux, with the rest of the system. We became involved in that starting in 1993 or 1994. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-12 18:58 ` Jeff Randall 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-14 19:37 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: randall; +Cc: linux-kernel Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I don't feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity. It's not a pity, it's an injustice. People have led you to disregard our work and say the job was done by others; you condemn us when we say we did it, and now you say you will shun us for it. It would be dishonorable to cower in fear of unjust criticism, so I will keep on doing what I think is right, and hope that you will reconsider eventually. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 19:37 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-14 11:23 ` Ranjeet Shetye 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-14 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: randall, linux-kernel On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:47:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU > software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am > still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I > don't feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity. > It's not a pity, it's an injustice. People have led you to disregard > our work and say the job was done by others; you condemn us when we > say we did it, and now you say you will shun us for it. The job *was* done by many others. You don't respect this. mark P.S. Every time you strip out the names of the people that you quote, I have found your practice disrespectful. I don't *know* who wrote the quote you make above. Therefore, I do not know whose reputation has improved in my eyes, if only, because they share my opinion regarding you. Please retain the names of the people you quote. -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-14 19:37 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-14 11:23 ` Ranjeet Shetye 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Ranjeet Shetye @ 2003-01-14 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel hi Richard, At the point in time when you started the GNU project, do you mind telling us how much of the GNU code was based on BSD and how much was not ? I am asking for a reasonably accurate percentage e.g. 20% BSD, 80% non-BSD, OR 85% BSD, 15% non-BSD. Something to that effect. Comments/Code/Headers whatever originated from the BSD team gets attributed to them, and the modifications you guys wrote are credited to the GNU project. Also, someone posted that the original GNU code was based on the BSD code and therefore the BSD licence, and one fine day the BSD licence was replaced with the GNU licence. Is that correct or incorrect ? thanks, Ranjeet Shetye. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-07 13:40 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-07 15:10 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-07 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: >I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps >it's because they became available some years later. We have a finnish poster boy and a more cuddly mascot. SCNR Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 4:38 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 20:31 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 7:51 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that > interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that > is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time. > > If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my > host operating system. > > Many enthusiasts the "Linux" operating system take the popularity of > the system (or of the kernel, Linux) as the supreme goal; but why > should the popularity of any one operating system or program be so > important? That isn't what really matters. You forget a key aspect, the "GNU system Suite" needs a frame work to function. > We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is > what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because > it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive Let people travel the road of choice, and not dictate they have to ride a bobsled straight to HELL^W(your definition of freedom) with you pushing all the way down. > there. If you use non-free drivers, you go just part way along the > road and never arrive at freedom. That defeats the purpose. To > achieve freedom, we need to insist on free drivers (and free > applications). Your definition of FREEDOM STINKS! FREEDOM == CHOICE ! If people want to use "non-free drivers", they choose to execute the freedom to do so. Now, what is clearly stated in your text is, FREEDOM means the vendor of the "non-free drivers" has NONE! If people want to have "free drivers" then contribute them. What I see is a lot of people wait for new technology to be supported, yet do nothing to enable the ones who have access and are willing to take the risks of dealing with the vendors who are paranoid. > If NVidia cooperates with us this much, we should certainly pick up What if they decide to thumb the nose at you? What if they decide to withdraw their drivers? Is your ego of "my way or no way" or "it is my license, I dictate its use" or .... fill in the blank, sigh ... never mind. You bang a drum of fair use for everything else which does not have GPL stamped and pounded into it. Maybe you should allow a little fair use in your world of the license. Oh, I am dreaming and so now to the rant! > the ball from there, and I am sure we will manage to go the rest of > the way. But don't bet on 2 weeks. Softare always takes twice as > long as you expect ;-). If it takes a whole month month to be able to > use NVidia hardware in freedom, I won't complain about the delay. <RANT RANT DOUBLE_RANT> Execise your CHOICE and FREEDOM is yours. FREEDOM to pick and use hardware which is not natively supported. FREEDOM to use protocols which are not support. FREEDOM to use drivers which do the task you desire. or enjoy your CAPTIVITY with a loss of CHOICE. CAPTIVITY, well there is the FREEDOM to use what is supported open. CAPTIVITY, well this is not supported, no options available. CAPTIVITY, no drivers capable, we suffer down time to wait for a sucker^Whacker^Wcodepoet^Wwhatever will slave for us. </RANT /RANT /DOUBLE_RANT> > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. It might take more > than 4 weeks to write the code, but surely not more than a few months. Gee, it has taken 12 years to get to where we are now. Is everything today which is in the kernel "fully functional" ? Come on Richard, this is not your "printer". It is something of beauty wrappered with a tarbaby in front of a briar patch. Ease up with the sticky fingered tarbaby, the briar patch is enough of a boundary. Next go pick and use words out of BLACK's LAW. You risk it all with out drawing crisp clear lines. All it takes is for one loss in court and the fear of legal action is history. The court battle may not fall in a circuit which is friendly to your choice of words in the license. Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 4:38 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 20:31 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:35 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Gauntlet Set NOW! Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andre; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel What I see is a lot of people wait for new technology to be supported, yet do nothing to enable the ones who have access and are willing to take the risks of dealing with the vendors who are paranoid. Yes, that is a shame. How can we change that? We have to spread the word through our community that encouraging and rewarding Nvidia is self-destructive until they cooperate with our freedom. What if they decide to thumb the nose at you? I believe that is what they are doing now. (Please correct me if I'm wrong--I would be glad to hear it.) What if they decide to withdraw their drivers? We would not lose any free software that way, and it might increase the impetus for people to work improving on the free drivers. In the long run, this would be for the best. If people want to use "non-free drivers", they choose to execute the freedom to do so. Now, what is clearly stated in your text is, FREEDOM means the vendor of the "non-free drivers" has NONE! Making a program non-free is denying other people the freedom to study, change and/or redistribute it. It is an act of domination. To speak of the "freedom" to dominate others is to stretch the concept of freedom into a Russell paradox. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:31 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 21:35 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-04 23:45 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Gauntlet Set NOW! Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-03 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms, andre; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Richard, I admire your staunch stand; I don't always agree with it, but I admire you nonetheless. I've been in the social justice business myself (and still am, to a new degree); it ain't easy. In fact, I burned out a while back, and decided to take a little rest. Five years is long enough for rest, I guess. > Making a program non-free is denying other people the freedom to > study, change and/or redistribute it. It is an act of domination. Quite true. nVidia wishes to maintain control -- to dominate -- the market for video cards. As such, they are reluctant to reveal details of their product which might be useful to a competitor. In a system that looks at benefit-loss in terms of dollars-euros-yen, there is no incentive for nVidia to open their drivers or provide proprietary information. Cash-strapped Universities accept corporate sponsorships, only to lose the freedom to publish new discoveries. Drug companies keep their research private, rather than combin efforts with other companies to produce better medicines. These same problems underly draconian laws that have twisted copyrights and patents into corporate "assets." From deforesting the planet to the fight for "GNU/Linux", it all comes down to one thing: corporate dominance of society. And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU. Why? Because outside a few technorati "in the know", few people had *heard* of free software until Linux caught on. The term GNU/Linux is correct both technically and morally, but the *term* is less important than the theme. Linux has opened a door for the promotion of free ideals in the general population -- a truly remarkable event! Counterpoint: Linux would not exist without GNU. The relationship of GNU and Linux should be mutually symbiotic, not confrontational. Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for example? Or does GNU need to be first for some symbolic or emotional reason? The goal is not the self-promotion of GNU, but the advancement of intellectual freedom. Instead of being ignored by nVidia, they are meeting us part way -- and that's better than not meeting them at all! nVidia produce good hardware, and they provide a free (as in beer) driver that in turn attracts people to use Linux/GNU. Those people increase the audience that hears about the value of intellectual freedom, and they (assuming they *are* educated by us) put market pressure on nVidia to release free-as-in-freedom drivers. In other words, we use market forces to open windows of opportunity, through which we illuminate the masses who were unreachable before. Confrontation builds walls; wedges break them down. -- Scott Robert Ladd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 21:35 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-04 23:45 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-04 23:58 ` Mark Rutherford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: scott; +Cc: andre, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU. It was certainly a very good thing--it filled the last gap in the system. 100% of an operating system is a lot more useful than 95%. Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for example? It's appropriate to put GNU first since it came first, but that's a secondary question so I won't argue about it. "Linux/GNU" gives us equal mention, and that is a lot better than just "Linux". Thank you in advance if you do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 23:45 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:58 ` Mark Rutherford 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutherford @ 2003-01-04 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel Richard Stallman wrote: > And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU. > > It was certainly a very good thing--it filled the last gap in the > system. 100% of an operating system is a lot more useful than 95%. > > Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for example? > > It's appropriate to put GNU first since it came first, but that's a > secondary question so I won't argue about it. "Linux/GNU" gives us > equal mention, and that is a lot better than just "Linux". Thank you > in advance if you do that. > Does it matter that GNU came first? Debian uses GNU in it, hence Debian GNU/Linux But... Linux is just a kernel, its not a 'complete' OS, thats why its not the GNU/Linux kernel I think your argument should be that a distribution should be named, for example: Redhat GNU/Linux, or SuSE GNU/Linux ...whats the problem? I think the debate about what the distribution should be called should be argued with the maintainers of that distribution, not with the maintainers of the Linux kernel, or its contributors I wouldnt mind if I saw 'Gentoo GNU/Linux' I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU. P.S. I dont use a distribution, I built my Linux based operating system out of GNU programs and utilities with a Linux kernel. I used to use Slackware Linux... But, I have since become dangerous :-) I dont have a name for it. its just my workstation :) > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Regards, Mark Rutherford mark@justirc.net File: Mark Rutherford.ASC -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> mQGiBDqwRnsRBADTpKKSKAcphYdcVTvBpEFFNK1eL4dQ/pBwK4NimeoAA9ISD04L Mv/CqH5g9D1wzXEhRBhbFZnmfoTPFEWH4Gjr4KIPdsXkTEfoJ2j55qksHWMkE10A K8gZlI3Ovuf8BbIabfXmjf+XtId3F4+7+og4mc7EAkatYbbl/5pR0Niy3wCg/+I/ LUQPYGloF829jXaOW7C+tG8D/RZt8lAL/Z1NfGsQYZlE1X+Gcqf0J6HaMosnVuah 1zAbgUHCIvNq+TOC+0KydEvbs7tAq6m+Q4zQZaqEsMwufTCWxzh+v3thRBLIuT5E jsTi4djkrdG3TTeAszymO/YEXQMg4Tq2hMiyeWlyTmH4C6enMu0zJMIu4OEef7+W KpYhBACYnukDVI8Vnw1J5KaiCZYvERhj4cr3BTk7oeYxIRH1x5S6NXK0+uVcpusa a8ZU4zcxvHh0k3iR8HIZcNh30eXbMF/J5pW9gorJuPwCC5Q7b+gUVaeec+1X+Wmt 2k8RAq9RtriUdrmVN5QcPBLFd4hOHQcWDcuyhmiFp68LFvxLSLQrTWFyayBSdXRo ZXJmb3JkIDxNYXJrMjAwMEBiZWxsYXRsYW50aWMubmV0PokAWAQQEQIAGAUCOrBG ewgLAwkIBwIBCgIZAQUbAwAAAAAKCRAudCWX7QO6ULcaAJwIsYHeAp6FC5OVWSOo qc8O87kvBgCgz1cLgVXYcSlDWEeE32PFYb6akuy5Ag0EOrBGexAIAPZCV7cIfwgX cqK61qlC8wXo+VMROU+28W65Szgg2gGnVqMU6Y9AVfPQB8bLQ6mUrfdMZIZJ+AyD vWXpF9Sh01D49Vlf3HZSTz09jdvOmeFXklnN/biudE/F/Ha8g8VHMGHOfMlm/xX5 u/2RXscBqtNbno2gpXI61Brwv0YAWCvl9Ij9WE5J280gtJ3kkQc2azNsOA1FHQ98 iLMcfFstjvbzySPAQ/ClWxiNjrtVjLhdONM0/XwXV0OjHRhs3jMhLLUq/zzhsSlA GBGNfISnCnLWhsQDGcgHKXrKlQzZlp+r0ApQmwJG0wg9ZqRdQZ+cfL2JSyIZJrqr ol7DVekyCzsAAgIIAO5Bt3XOgo2GPNOCuLv6A6mRxPxwwVsYEMmVAIp/c5nluBMi Tu4iQU5f3U9UqZMcFKyLr1Vh0bpO6RB6L/5tXWSRY2Yly9Ofg/e0Npgebkdd8GXE +IuEDI4lr1kbO70hlxFUPKSOQRjSmmVKNhUAiXEFQ7OtB9k5GECsHrD6qxR6r/ny XMBK2g2UUSh17Gx/pqH+XwXJ67DEQmF8hcnyiN9E3WQ5w3bIbKwFCaHF+tJbVnUd XxszxQYrsb6Feo0FVdCD+VVPQGesv34CrnKuED/mF/WoI8a3eYCMiY03IQgW514X JX+Jnmk9RFbTg75NdXIKDqKpB3wq39n3JmWRZG+JAEwEGBECAAwFAjqwRnsFGwwA AAAACgkQLnQll+0DulAfjgCfbVxiUtJbpXPn6gVJlnlIzur1yvgAnjh/9bdLsSrd cUaN07NL7N9NjgG1 =hpbN -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-04 23:58 ` Mark Rutherford @ 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 4:55 ` Philip Wyett 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: linux-kernel I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU. I wish that were true. Most of the people who know about the system have heard of "Linux" but they have not heard of GNU. Geeks often think they know, but what they know is often wrong; for instance, they often say that "GNU is the name of a collection of tools that are used in Linux." (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 4:55 ` Philip Wyett 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Philip Wyett @ 2003-01-06 4:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2430 bytes --] On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 03:25, Richard Stallman wrote: >> I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU. > > I wish that were true. Most of the people who know about the system > have heard of "Linux" but they have not heard of GNU. Geeks often > think they know, but what they know is often wrong; for instance, they > often say that "GNU is the name of a collection of tools that are used > in Linux." (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.) > Hi, While I agree with you that the system should be called 'GNU Linux' and be referred too as such in communication etc. When your with a customer advocating implementation of the operating system for example. You cannot contradict and try force correctness/fairness of naming, unless you want to annoy and turn your customer off too you! For most people in the commercial world, we can use 'GNU Linux' when we write and speak hoping people catch onto it and nothing really more bar explain if someone asks why we call it 'GNU Linux'. You would I hope respect this. Also the page you linked to is alot of the problem. Yes people have a position on how something should be. However, too go on and on about it just gets up peoples noses. On the page is the following segment: "However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us into silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the community, so we hope you can convince them to stop." The rudeness is not intimidation or not liking you to mention it I feel. Most people can be informed of something once or twice, but when it's told too them a third, fourth and fifth time they get frustrated to the point where the only means of communication is an outburst! Yes it is not probably the best of language used, but what they are trying to say is "Can you just change the record for a while please?". Sorry in advance to the animal lovers. :) There is more than one way to skin a cat and I think the preaching method has had it's day and more subtle methods may prove more productive. Regards Philip Wyett -- AIM: PhilipWyett ICQ: 135463069 Email: philipwyett@dsl.pipex.com -- Public key: http://www.philipwyett.dsl.pipex.com/gpg/public_key.txt -- [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-03 20:31 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:35 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel Richard, I am going to sell and ship binary only models which is solely a protocol. One which is in a working group and is not an offical document but will be ratified soon. I will not release the source code period. It is not a derived work. It can and will be capable of running it on other unixs as well has have a version for microsoft and maybe apple. The API and boundary will execute all kernel operations and calls outside of the core protocol. There is no hardware period. It is pure software. I am prepared to show the the source of the API callers; however, given the anal nature of the review I expect. I need a few more days to extract every damn possible kernel function or caller that is even close to my property. The object generated from that file will then be linked with a private closed source library, which may or may not be setup under LGPL. This would be the Library GPL and not the updated Lesser GPL. But I am not prepared to set this position yet. Are you prepared to SUE me ? Are you prepared to SUE others like me ? Are you prepared to SUE every company in Silicon Valley for embedded ? Are you prepared to SUE every settop box vendor ? Either, put up or walk on this issue. Fear, Threats, and Intimidation resulting from a willful grey zone so clearly and cleverly designed by yourself is not acceptable. Since I am in a position of loosing revenue today because of this silly issue of usage of headers and not any inline code inside them, I will seek counter damages if I am forced into litigation. Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Gauntlet Set NOW! Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 7:12 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-03 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick, Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel Hear hear! RMS, I've heckled you in person on this subject, so now I'm going to do it online too. One aspect of freedom you carefully ignore is that of the writers of code to do what they will with it. Now, in general I and my company do place our code under whichever free license makes sense for the particular project, as a matter of principle. So we have produced code under GPL (linux kernel and emacs variants), BSD licenses (network protocols, BSD kernel, python libraries), patches to both python and perl under their own licenses, and even MPL code with the 'original developer' rights deliberately given to another company to maintain and distribute. We are not hostile to free software, but neither are we to the right of original authors to make their own decisions. But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have the right to redistribute. Often this is hardware support code, sometimes it compiles into hardware (embedded FPGAs). Even so, if we can we make it open-source, closed-distribution (in other words, to get the code you must have bought the license to the original IP). This preserves as much freedom as we ourselves have been given the option to. Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle. Which is fair enough, the developers of the GPL kernel don't need the hassle of maintaining APIs to the degree that would guarantee backwards compatibility for pure binary modules. To keep the kernel as good as it is and continue improving it, that is necessary. To explicitly allow binary modules implies that the module loading process is not linking in the terms of the GPL. The *only* grey area is the status of inline functions and assembler in the hearder files, and clever construction of a module's shim driver can deal with that one. Andre, what I see you doing here is exactly what NVIDIA already did, which is (L)GPL the interface to the kernel and keep the core algorithms proprietary. I don't know what your constraints are, but it doesn't matter, you are entitled to do that. Even if it is simply that you want to make money off the code. I take it that it's an iSCSI target for the Linux VFS or block device layer? That would be very cool, and certainly worth basing a company on. I understand from a former NVIDIA employee that NVIDIA are not able to GPL the whole driver since some of it is not their code; I suspect that some of the non-NVIDIA code actually belongs to Microsoft. So they have opened it up to the extent possible for them. Nowhere in any of this do I see anyone doing anything that is actually wrong. By sueing either Andre or NVIDIA, Richard, you'd be the one committing the wrong, by taking away either Andre's freedom to decide on his business plans, or the communities access to NVIDIAs hardware, which they have provided with considerable goodwill. And both Andre's goodwill and NVIDIAs are of considerable value to the community. Neither of these are good test cases for the spirit of the GPL; the past events of, for instance, vendors refusing to release source for betas of a Linux distribution, are far more to the point. And a test case based on kernel binary modules would be very destructive to the free software community. First because it is likely to cause a mass exodus of vendors from Linux. Where would they go? BSD, of course, where no such issue can arise, as well as a variety of purely proprietary systems. But more importantly, it would reinforce the whole concept of intellectual property in a manner that, in the end, will result in an even more hostile to freedom environment. I think it is important for the free software community to remember that the freedom of all creators of ideas is vitally important, and for us not to contribute to the shackles being placed on music, literature, and science. For ultimately, they are more important than software alone. Andrew --On Friday, January 03, 2003 15:01:51 -0800 Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > Richard, > > I am going to sell and ship binary only models which is solely a protocol. > One which is in a working group and is not an offical document but will be > ratified soon. > > I will not release the source code period. It is not a derived work. > It can and will be capable of running it on other unixs as well has have a > version for microsoft and maybe apple. > > The API and boundary will execute all kernel operations and calls outside > of the core protocol. There is no hardware period. It is pure software. > I am prepared to show the the source of the API callers; however, given > the anal nature of the review I expect. I need a few more days to extract > every damn possible kernel function or caller that is even close to my > property. The object generated from that file will then be linked with a > private closed source library, which may or may not be setup under LGPL. > > This would be the Library GPL and not the updated Lesser GPL. > But I am not prepared to set this position yet. > > Are you prepared to SUE me ? > Are you prepared to SUE others like me ? > Are you prepared to SUE every company in Silicon Valley for embedded ? > Are you prepared to SUE every settop box vendor ? > > Either, put up or walk on this issue. > > Fear, Threats, and Intimidation resulting from a willful grey zone so > clearly and cleverly designed by yourself is not acceptable. > > Since I am in a position of loosing revenue today because of this silly > issue of usage of headers and not any inline code inside them, I will seek > counter damages if I am forced into litigation. > > Regards, > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 7:12 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-04 9:14 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-04 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote: [snip] > Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary > modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of > such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle. I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify this statement. Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature. Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I think they're ok." Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright holders? In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders involved. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 7:12 ` Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-04 9:14 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 9:45 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ryan Anderson; +Cc: linux-kernel I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so far as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views). I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being selective in that context. My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far as they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly been my own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not GPL because of legal constraints. Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far as they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is not a smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the long run. And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely NVIDIA did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead bought 'IP block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have access to those under probably will not allow that release, whether NVIDIA would like to release that information or not. Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all. My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed by the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to allow binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module, since it is effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel now, as you correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware vendors will not be able to release full specifications or GPL code for quite some time, and it is better to allow those that are motivated to to open up as much as they can, than to require only that hardware for which full information or GPL-able code is available to be used with Linux. And saying that the vendor then has to assume all the maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on them to evolve toward openness. Andrew --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote: > > [snip] > >> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary >> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of >> such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance >> hassle. > > I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify > this statement. > > Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature. > > Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same > license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When > asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I > think they're ok." > > Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright > holders? > > In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk > to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were > ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders > involved. > > > -- > > Ryan Anderson > sometimes Pug Majere > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 9:14 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 9:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 10:01 ` Andrew McGregor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, linux-kernel There is a solution out there and as soon as I can verify it works, gameover for anyone thinking they will get access to soft IP again by banging a dead drum. CAM, Content Addressable Memory on a card. Usage will be to stuff any binary soft code now reclassified as "firmware" into a piece of hardware. Set the addressable memory hooks for what is now called the open source wrapper for binary objects, and game is over. There is hardware with a software core which is totally embedded for all practical purposes. Use your existing GPL wrapper and call it you new driver! Funny how people come up with ways to thwart the sticky fingers to rip off IP and hard work. Lets see how GPL goes to get soft IP locked into hardware. Force rules and license into places they do not belong, and evolution happens to push back and impose the boundaries of IP. Surprised ? Not me. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so far > as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views). > > I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being > selective in that context. > > My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far as > they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly been my > own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not GPL because > of legal constraints. > > Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far as > they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is not a > smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the long run. > > And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely NVIDIA > did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead bought 'IP > block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have access to those > under probably will not allow that release, whether NVIDIA would like to > release that information or not. > > Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the > hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is > constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all. > > My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed by > the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to allow > binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module, since it is > effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel now, as you > correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware vendors will not > be able to release full specifications or GPL code for quite some time, and > it is better to allow those that are motivated to to open up as much as > they can, than to require only that hardware for which full information or > GPL-able code is available to be used with Linux. And saying that the > vendor then has to assume all the maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on > them to evolve toward openness. > > Andrew > > --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson > <ryan@michonline.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary > >> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of > >> such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance > >> hassle. > > > > I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify > > this statement. > > > > Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature. > > > > Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same > > license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When > > asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I > > think they're ok." > > > > Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright > > holders? > > > > In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk > > to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were > > ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders > > involved. > > > > > > -- > > > > Ryan Anderson > > sometimes Pug Majere > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 9:45 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 10:01 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 19:31 ` Matan Ziv-Av 2003-01-06 10:56 ` Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, linux-kernel Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps talk GLX to it... Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI. I suspect a similar effect can be had by sticking some flash on the card, then mapping it (cached in system RAM for performance, of course!) and jumping into it. Then provide a proprietary app (for instance, the binary part of the X server, for a video driver) to load the right stuff in the flash. For that matter, you could just copy_from_user the code straight out of a userland binary. Not to mention fun with FPGAs. Ever seen DOOM run on a system with no CPU at all? I have. There are umpteen ways one can frustrate the pedants, and nothing to be gained on either side by their insistence. And plenty to lose, because how many companies for whom Linux is already marginal will bother? I reckon if this is pushed that NVIDIA will abandon Linux and just say 'You want UNIX on ix86? Buy the drivers from Accelerated X or whoever, or use FreeBSD'. And probably I will too, and go and use a BSD for my product. And maybe Andre will too, and that just makes free software (meaning GPL) look bad. Which would not be good for the world in general. Andrew --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 01:45:44 -0800 Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > There is a solution out there and as soon as I can verify it works, > gameover for anyone thinking they will get access to soft IP again by > banging a dead drum. > > CAM, Content Addressable Memory on a card. > > Usage will be to stuff any binary soft code now reclassified as "firmware" > into a piece of hardware. Set the addressable memory hooks for what is > now called the open source wrapper for binary objects, and game is over. > > There is hardware with a software core which is totally embedded for all > practical purposes. Use your existing GPL wrapper and call it you new > driver! Funny how people come up with ways to thwart the sticky fingers > to rip off IP and hard work. Lets see how GPL goes to get soft IP locked > into hardware. > > Force rules and license into places they do not belong, and evolution > happens to push back and impose the boundaries of IP. > > Surprised ? Not me. > > Cheers, > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >> I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so >> far as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views). >> >> I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being >> selective in that context. >> >> My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far >> as they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly >> been my own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not >> GPL because of legal constraints. >> >> Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far >> as they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is >> not a smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the >> long run. >> >> And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely >> NVIDIA did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead >> bought 'IP block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have >> access to those under probably will not allow that release, whether >> NVIDIA would like to release that information or not. >> >> Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the >> hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is >> constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all. >> >> My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed >> by the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to >> allow binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module, >> since it is effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel >> now, as you correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware >> vendors will not be able to release full specifications or GPL code for >> quite some time, and it is better to allow those that are motivated to >> to open up as much as they can, than to require only that hardware for >> which full information or GPL-able code is available to be used with >> Linux. And saying that the vendor then has to assume all the >> maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on them to evolve toward >> openness. >> >> Andrew >> >> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson >> <ryan@michonline.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary >> >> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers >> >> of such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance >> >> hassle. >> > >> > I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify >> > this statement. >> > >> > Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature. >> > >> > Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the >> > same license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. >> > When asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, >> > "I think they're ok." >> > >> > Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright >> > holders? >> > >> > In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk >> > to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they >> > were ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright >> > holders involved. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Ryan Anderson >> > sometimes Pug Majere >> > >> > >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" >> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 10:01 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 19:31 ` Matan Ziv-Av 2003-01-04 19:43 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-06 10:56 ` Helge Hafting 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Matan Ziv-Av @ 2003-01-04 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps > talk GLX to it... > > Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI. Actually, I object to this. On my via 686a, the advice on this list for getting the power saving was to use ACPI (after setting some bits in PCI config space). But lvcool program showed how to do this without proprietary programs, and I adapted it to bit of kernel code: static void via686_idle(void) { if (!current->need_resched) inb(Reg_PL2); } static int __init init_lvcool(void) { nb = pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8363_0, nb); smb = pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_82C686_4, smb); if(nb==NULL)pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8371_0, nb); if(!Reg_PL2) { u32 t; pci_read_config_dword(smb, 0x48, &t); Reg_PL2 = (t&0xff80) + 0x14; printk(KERN_DEBUG "Reg_PL2 = %08x\n", Reg_PL2); } old_idle = pm_idle; pm_idle = via686_idle; return 0; } And I don't need to run any proprietary code during normal system run. I still need to use BIOS to boot and to poweroff the system, but that will be solved as well. -- Matan Ziv-Av. matan@svgalib.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 19:31 ` Matan Ziv-Av @ 2003-01-04 19:43 ` Andrew McGregor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-04 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matan Ziv-Av; +Cc: linux-kernel Which is all nice and good, but trying to do this in order to suspend a laptop is going to result in vastly more code, and you just can't get the documentation. After all, the vendor gave you the code with the hardware in this case, so it's not as if you can possibly not have a license for it :-) Andrew --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:38 +0200 Matan Ziv-Av <matan@svgalib.org> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >> Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps >> talk GLX to it... >> >> Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI. > > Actually, I object to this. > On my via 686a, the advice on this list for getting the power saving was > to use ACPI (after setting some bits in PCI config space). But lvcool > program showed how to do this without proprietary programs, and I > adapted it to bit of kernel code: > <snip> > > And I don't need to run any proprietary code during normal system run. I > still need to use BIOS to boot and to poweroff the system, but > that will be solved as well. > > > -- > Matan Ziv-Av. matan@svgalib.org > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 10:01 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 19:31 ` Matan Ziv-Av @ 2003-01-06 10:56 ` Helge Hafting 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-01-06 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel Andrew McGregor wrote: > Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI. Many does. But there's no need to shout about it, you just disable the ACPI and APM config option. I never saw them do something useful on a non-portable anyway. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 7:12 ` Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:22 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-05 5:12 ` Andrew McGregor 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andrew; +Cc: andre, linux-kernel But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have the right to redistribute. At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no program, I would develop no program. I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize. In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free. This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case there is likely to be some way. If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom. As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do instead. Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle. Linus has the right to permit this, with his code, and so do other contributors to Linux. In the GNU Project we usually don't permit this, and the FSF believes the GPL does not in general permit it, but occasionally we make an exception when it seems best to do so. I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility of the copyright holders of Linux. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 1:22 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-05 5:33 ` Milosz Tanski 2003-01-05 5:12 ` Andrew McGregor 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-05 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: andrew, andre, linux-kernel On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize. > In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free. > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a > harder way. There is of course the business model used by the ghostscript people, used by tytso when he made resize2fs and also used by Andre Hedrick: 1) write the software, sell it for a profit for some period of time (eg. 18 months) 2) after that, release the program and its source code To the copyright holder, this has all the benefits of a strictly copyrighted work, ie. funding. It also has the additional benefit of having free software out there that lags close enough to your commercial program that a competitor has no chance of entering the market with a non-free product of mediocre quality. To the free software community, it has the benefits of free software becoming available at a higher speed than what would have happened without any funding at all. Of course, the copyright holder has to choose a license like the GPL when releasing the software as open source, since otherwise the competitors would be able to use the older version as a basis to develop their commercial product from. To me, this looks like a win/win situation and I hope more companies will choose this business model. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-05 1:22 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-05 5:33 ` Milosz Tanski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Milosz Tanski @ 2003-01-05 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1500 bytes --] On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:22:44 -0200 (BRST) Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just > > criticize. In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the > > program free. > > > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be > > a harder way. > > There is of course the business model used by the ghostscript > people, used by tytso when he made resize2fs and also used by > Andre Hedrick: > > 1) write the software, sell it for a profit for some period > of time (eg. 18 months) > > 2) after that, release the program and its source code > > To the copyright holder, this has all the benefits of a strictly Seams to me like a perfectly good idea, infact I want to use that for a game i'm developing in my free time(wheter or not i finish this, is out of the scope of the discussion :)), once i'm done i'm going to see how much time i spent working on this. Then i'm going figure out a time period and ammount of money that would be *fair* conpensation. then i plan to release under a free licence (such as the GPL, haven't put a lot of though into that part quite yet), depending if I make the set ammount of money first or the set time passes buy (since chance are then i won't make my set goal :|). If people (not even me) can make money to put on a table this way, have a decent place to live, and have health insurance then this model can't be bad. [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:22 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-05 5:12 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-05 5:31 ` Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-05 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: andre, linux-kernel By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and hardware, not so much software. --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to > close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because > it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have > the right to redistribute. > > At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to > be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people > to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up > their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no > program, I would develop no program. Here is where we differ. I do these things because, even though they do not promote software freedom, they can and, I hope, do promote other kinds of freedom in other ways. I also always look to the maximally free way to do the software parts. Sometimes it is not possible to acheive the other goals we have and keep the software entirely free. I think, however, that the freedom given by very inexpensive and unconstrained (that is, free as in speech) telecommunications is somewhat more important than the absolute freedom of the specific software we use to acheive that. In several cases, we have chosen proprietary solutions where they make the monetary cost to the end user dramatically lower, because one of our target problems is the lack of economic freedom in many parts of the world. For those with an arbitrary hardware budget, there are or soon will be interoperable free software alternatives. We make sure of that. We make sure we use open standards with no closed extensions, so as to make sure this continues. > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize. > In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free. I'm often focused on the case where the total hardware + software cost is the key factor between user of any communications and user of no communications. I use free or partly free software wherever I can, because I am not hostile to that goal, but that is not my overriding concern. I am also concerned that some of the zealots in the free software, not necessarily including yourself Richard, do not set precedents in the courts that, while possibly reinforcing the particular technicality of the GPL, undermine the freeness of kinds of speech other than software, such as scientific communication, cultural artefacts and political discussion. In the long run that would be worse for freedom in general. > This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in > another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure > important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case > there is likely to be some way. Here I'm using that term in the sense of 'copyrighted (and possibly patented) compilable information and its documentation', covering both software and hardware designs. If I were to use it to cover anything else I'd be more specific, as is common usage where I come from. I do understand the ambiguity and hidden conflations behind the term; I have been involved in both trademark and patenting (of hardware; software patents are evil, no question) work, and I'm cited as an inventor on one patent, so I have some firsthand experience. > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a > harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the > hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends > non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom. I'm principally concerned with other sorts of freedom, while attempting to forward the cause of software freedom to the extent I can, and attempting never to advance the cause of any sort of non-freedom. It isn't easy at all, believe me. > As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do > instead. I could go back to being a musician or a scientist. There are freedom issues there, too, believe me. And I'd still be debating free software, because in those fields it's important too. It would certainly be easier to tread the path of free software purity in those fields, but I suspect it would make less long-term impact for me to do so. > I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a > clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would > violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do > not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility > of the copyright holders of Linux. I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that the zealot who started the thread that has us talking about this does not appear to be one of those copyright holders; I suspect most of them have more sense. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-05 5:12 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-05 5:31 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-05 10:47 ` Andrew McGregor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-05 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: rms, linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and > hardware, not so much software. I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol state machine we have developed is agnostic? Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle TCP SCSI Quads ATA SCI SATA Myrinet MD InfiniBand LVM TELCO USB CARRIER 1394 SAS Fibre Channel FLOPPY, for emergencies. Create Your Own Create Your Own Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works! This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group > --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Richard Stallman > <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > > > But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to > > close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because > > it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have > > the right to redistribute. > > > > At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to > > be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people > > to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up > > their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no > > program, I would develop no program. > > Here is where we differ. I do these things because, even though they do > not promote software freedom, they can and, I hope, do promote other kinds > of freedom in other ways. I also always look to the maximally free way to > do the software parts. Sometimes it is not possible to acheive the other > goals we have and keep the software entirely free. I think, however, that > the freedom given by very inexpensive and unconstrained (that is, free as > in speech) telecommunications is somewhat more important than the absolute > freedom of the specific software we use to acheive that. In several cases, > we have chosen proprietary solutions where they make the monetary cost to > the end user dramatically lower, because one of our target problems is the > lack of economic freedom in many parts of the world. For those with an > arbitrary hardware budget, there are or soon will be interoperable free > software alternatives. We make sure of that. We make sure we use open > standards with no closed extensions, so as to make sure this continues. > > > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize. > > In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free. > > I'm often focused on the case where the total hardware + software cost is > the key factor between user of any communications and user of no > communications. I use free or partly free software wherever I can, because > I am not hostile to that goal, but that is not my overriding concern. > > I am also concerned that some of the zealots in the free software, not > necessarily including yourself Richard, do not set precedents in the courts > that, while possibly reinforcing the particular technicality of the GPL, > undermine the freeness of kinds of speech other than software, such as > scientific communication, cultural artefacts and political discussion. In > the long run that would be worse for freedom in general. > > > This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in > > another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure > > important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case > > there is likely to be some way. > > Here I'm using that term in the sense of 'copyrighted (and possibly > patented) compilable information and its documentation', covering both > software and hardware designs. If I were to use it to cover anything else > I'd be more specific, as is common usage where I come from. I do > understand the ambiguity and hidden conflations behind the term; I have > been involved in both trademark and patenting (of hardware; software > patents are evil, no question) work, and I'm cited as an inventor on one > patent, so I have some firsthand experience. > > > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a > > harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the > > hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends > > non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom. > > I'm principally concerned with other sorts of freedom, while attempting to > forward the cause of software freedom to the extent I can, and attempting > never to advance the cause of any sort of non-freedom. It isn't easy at > all, believe me. > > > As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do > > instead. > > I could go back to being a musician or a scientist. There are freedom > issues there, too, believe me. And I'd still be debating free software, > because in those fields it's important too. It would certainly be easier > to tread the path of free software purity in those fields, but I suspect it > would make less long-term impact for me to do so. > > > I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a > > clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would > > violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do > > not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility > > of the copyright holders of Linux. > > I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that the zealot who started the > thread that has us talking about this does not appear to be one of those > copyright holders; I suspect most of them have more sense. > > Andrew > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-05 5:31 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-05 10:47 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-05 15:29 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-05 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel Oh, that's nice! Presumably you could substitute DCCP or whatever for TCP. I like it. So how about this, the result of a corridor conversation at an IETF: It is perfectly doable, using HIP and some (admittedly expensive) hardware crypto gear to run iSCSI encrypted at Gigabit Ethernet rates and faster, while being able to attach endpoints more or less at random in IP space and move them around freely while connected. Mobile hotplug IP storage :-) HIP is the Host Identity Payload, which can be seen as different things depending on which features you like. The idea starts from distinguishing the IP address, which basically represents a location in the net, from the Host Identity, which is a public key that identifies an endpoint. By some machinations, you end up being IP numbering and version agnostic, while having an extremely lightweight opportunistic key exchange protocol. There are several implementations and all the specs linked to at http://www.hip4inter.net/, not presently including my own, which is purely userspace (everything I have so far needed is provided by standard kernels, except ESP and that is now in too), BSD licensed and written in Python and which will be released soon, for some value of soon. This is a less mature protocol than iSCSI at this point, but I think there are some very interesting possibilities by combining the two. Andrew --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:39 -0800 Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and >> hardware, not so much software. > > I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol > state machine we have developed is agnostic? > > Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle > > TCP SCSI > Quads ATA > SCI SATA > Myrinet MD > InfiniBand LVM > TELCO USB > CARRIER 1394 > SAS > Fibre Channel > > FLOPPY, for emergencies. > > Create Your Own Create Your Own > > Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works! > > This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today > which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port. > > Cheers, > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-05 10:47 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-05 15:29 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-05 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel Already drafted the model for secure supporting such a beast. Additional the day will come when there is mobile internet radio everywhere with good data rates. The age of corporate security as it relates to content on laptops is just over the hill. No longer will people/corporations need to worry about security of laptops and that which is stored on them. Using iSCSI with ACLs, one can shutdown data access in an instant. Now this requires or suggests the need for Diskless Bootable iSCSI without suffering the extra cost associated with, what is known as "iBOOT" from IBM. This is another issue, but we (the community) have LinBIOS, and I have a full working version of DBiSCSI today. Well I will follow up on this later, and yes what you are asking about can be done. Cheers, On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > Oh, that's nice! > > Presumably you could substitute DCCP or whatever for TCP. I like it. > > So how about this, the result of a corridor conversation at an IETF: > > It is perfectly doable, using HIP and some (admittedly expensive) hardware > crypto gear to run iSCSI encrypted at Gigabit Ethernet rates and faster, > while being able to attach endpoints more or less at random in IP space and > move them around freely while connected. Mobile hotplug IP storage :-) > > > HIP is the Host Identity Payload, which can be seen as different things > depending on which features you like. The idea starts from distinguishing > the IP address, which basically represents a location in the net, from the > Host Identity, which is a public key that identifies an endpoint. > > By some machinations, you end up being IP numbering and version agnostic, > while having an extremely lightweight opportunistic key exchange protocol. > > There are several implementations and all the specs linked to at > http://www.hip4inter.net/, not presently including my own, which is purely > userspace (everything I have so far needed is provided by standard kernels, > except ESP and that is now in too), BSD licensed and written in Python and > which will be released soon, for some value of soon. > > This is a less mature protocol than iSCSI at this point, but I think there > are some very interesting possibilities by combining the two. > > Andrew > > --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:39 -0800 Andre Hedrick > <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote: > > > >> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and > >> hardware, not so much software. > > > > I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol > > state machine we have developed is agnostic? > > > > Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle > > > > TCP SCSI > > Quads ATA > > SCI SATA > > Myrinet MD > > InfiniBand LVM > > TELCO USB > > CARRIER 1394 > > SAS > > Fibre Channel > > > > FLOPPY, for emergencies. > > > > Create Your Own Create Your Own > > > > Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works! > > > > This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today > > which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andre Hedrick > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > > Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Gauntlet Set NOW! Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 7:41 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andre; +Cc: linux-kernel I'm not sure what your project is designed to do, so I don't have an opinion about how it stands regarding the GPL. However, I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of using simple material from header files. Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work. That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 7:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-09 7:50 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-09 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel Richard, My Lawyers instructed me not to talk to anyone about this issue any more. However, I will forward your note to them. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > I'm not sure what your project is designed to do, so I don't have an > opinion about how it stands regarding the GPL. However, I've talked > with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of > using simple material from header files. > > Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always > makes a derivative work. > > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > with substantial bodies) to do that. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 7:41 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-09 7:50 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-01-09 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:28:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > with substantial bodies) to do that. Richard, Thanks much for posting this. I admit I have been skipping this entire thread pretty much :) but the above is worth highlighting. Unfortunately, while helpful, this doesn't necessarily solve the problem in Linux; the things that are inlined are quite often fairly "smart" pieces of code and not just things as simple as wrapper functions, or structures and typedefs. Regardless, thanks again to posting the above. Regards, Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 7:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-09 7:50 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton 2003-01-09 8:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge 2003-01-09 23:06 ` Oliver Xymoron 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-01-09 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: andre, linux-kernel Richard Stallman wrote: > > ... > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > with substantial bodies) to do that. The last part doesn't make a lot of sense. Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within the code which provides that function. Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope, that's all. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton @ 2003-01-09 8:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge 2003-01-09 23:06 ` Oliver Xymoron 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2003-01-09 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: rms, andre, linux-kernel On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 00:08, Andrew Morton wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > > > ... > > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure > > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple > > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take > > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > > with substantial bodies) to do that. > > The last part doesn't make a lot of sense. > > Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at > all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via > subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within > the code which provides that function. > > Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope, > that's all. The thing that copyright law cares about is whether the thing you're shipping (in binary form) is a derivative work of something else; the GPL cares if that "something else" is licensed under the GPL because it requires the whole to be also (at least) GPL'd. Merely calling a function from a piece of code doesn't make that code a derivative work of the called function, but it would if the function were inlined. If a non-GPL piece of code depends on a piece of GPL'd code, but they are not shipped in a bound state (ie, dynamically linked), then the non-GPL code is not obligated to be GPL'd because it isn't a derivative work. This isn't the stated position of the FSF (at least last time I asked, because they don't consider static and dynamic binding to be separate cases), but it's the only one which makes sense in terms of looking at code in the binary and how it got there. There's a more complex argument that merely depending on GPL'd code (as a client of a GPL'd library, for example) makes your program a derivative work, even if your distributed binary contains no GPL'd code. This argument is based on the assumption that you're depending on an API for which all the implementations are GPL'd, so there's no way you can run the code without binding to GPL'd code. All it takes is one non-GPL'd implementation to break this argument. Bear in mind that the GPL only governs the act of distribution, so creating a derivative work dynamically at runtime is not subject to the GPL. Doing it statically means that you have to distribute the derivative work, which is subject to the GPL. Also bear in mind that copyright law only protects things with a creative input; you cannot copyright pure facts. As Richard says, the FSF considers things like function names, types, structure definitions, constants, etc to be pure facts which are necessary to know to call an API (and extends that to include small pieces of code, where "small" is not well defined). The implementation of the API itself *is* creative, and is therefore protected by copyright law. Hence the distinction between definitions and larger inlined implementations. Since the thing that is under consideration is not source code, but the distribution of binaries generated from the source, it is not merely an implementation detail as to whether a piece of code is included by reference (ie, an out-of-line function call) or included explicitly (inlined code). It makes the difference between a non-derivative work and a derivative work. J [Not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time talking to them about this stuff. Not that it makes this message at all valuable or reliable. ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton 2003-01-09 8:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2003-01-09 23:06 ` Oliver Xymoron 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Oliver Xymoron @ 2003-01-09 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: rms, linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:08:50AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > > > ... > > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure > > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple > > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take > > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > > with substantial bodies) to do that. > > The last part doesn't make a lot of sense. > > Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at > all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via > subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within > the code which provides that function. > > Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope, > that's all. I think part of the problem is that 'derived work' here is not something the FSF or the GPL is really in a position to define. It is instead the other side of the 'fair use' coin of copyright law. The question is really how much use of header files is fair use (and therefore completely independent of copyright) and how much constitutes a derived work (and therefore subject to the rules of the GPL)? Only a court can decide. However, I suspect that 'function' is not a bright line here. There are certainly plenty of inline functions that are trivial. You can quote f(x)=x^2 from a paper and not be infringing. Similarly, most if not all structure definitions are also trivial in the sense that they're simply lists of names and types - you can copy ingredient lists, phone directories and the like wholesale and also not be infringing. You're much more likely to get into trouble with things like the spinlock or semaphore code which are complex, original, and fairly unique. (I first typed that as uniq - enough shell hacking for today) -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 4:38 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-03 7:51 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is > what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because > it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive > ... You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be hampered if you successfully prove that closed source modules for Linux are illegal. If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will change. Have some faith in your own set of ideals and stop trying to jam it down other peoples' throats. Here is another factor to consider. Copyrights and patents are all nice and dandy, but unless you can make a court case that proves that you, or the 'violated party' is *LOSING MONEY*, the case would likely be thrown out of court. What money are you losing by nVidia using closed source modules for their proprietary hardware? nVidia believes it is protecting its own interests. You believe that they don't deserve this right, and that any company that doesn't agree with you doesn't deserve to use Linux. I can see all the freedom in the air. It is overpowering. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 7:51 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be hampered if you successfully prove that [non-free] modules for Linux are illegal. I'm not trying to prove this--as I see it, Linus gave permission for them, which means they are legal. I regret his decision to do this, but I cannot change it. But let's suppose that that were changed. It would not affect your "freedom" to use Linux (and GNU/Linux), only whether it runs on a certain computer. It is true that this might mean a practical sacrifice--you might have to get a different kind of computer, for instance. I don't see that as a horrible thing. We look for computers that work with free drivers; you can too. You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together for the freedom of the system. If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will change. I don't support the open source movement, but I know what they say about this. They say that open source usually leads to more powerful and reliable software. Nothing assures us that will persuade all companies to adopt the practice. You have simplified their position to a point where they would not recognize it. You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not. If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist. GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun ` (3 more replies) 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 4 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Long rant but it's a worthwhile read if you want to know why I don't agree with Richard. > You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable > forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not. > If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist. > GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have > freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work > to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will > still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it. The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that somehow progress will continue to be made once you have that freedom. Let's just look at that for a minute and see if that makes sense. Postulate that all the software in the world is GPLed. All of it. That's your goal as far as I can make out, but let's not argue about if it is or is not, it doesn't matter. Anyone who wants to build on that software can, there is almost perfect code reuse. Again, something I think you want, certainly a nice idea. Because all the software is freely available, this sets an upper bound on how much any company can charge for it. If the amount they charge for gathering it up and making a distribution, for example, is low enough that other people look at it and think that's too little money for that much work, then their prices will hold. On the other hand, if they are charging twice that, another company can spring up which grabs the software and sells it for the lower price, a price low enough that no cheaper company can come in. Obviously, the first company either drops their prices or goes out of business. I think this too is what you want, it seems great, people are paying a small amount of money to get the software, a much, much smaller amount than they would be paying if the software were closed. Case in point: Microsoft. Nobody would be paying what they charge if they didn't have to do so. But people would certainly pay $20 or $50 for a CD full of Windows + Office + whatever. But not much more and they'd pay for one CD and then install it many many times, so the effective revenue per machine would be less than one cent in an organization of any size. So what's wrong with that picture, it seems fantastic? A world where we can all share each other's work, the prices are low, anyone can tinker, anyone can package, sounds great. The problem is that the amount of money being generated is very small compared to what software companies get under the closed source model. So what? What's wrong with that? Well, under that model, none of the software companies can afford to pay for any development out of the distribution revenue, if they were charging more than it took to pay for the people to build the distribution then someone would undercut them, there is nothing they can do to prevent that. That same argument works for the support model or anything else. It doesn't matter what model you pick, if you charge more than it costs to do the work plus a very slim profit margin, that presents an attractive opportunity for someone else to set up shop. We can argue about this until the cows come up but it's simple economics. If there is no barrier to entry and a supplier is charging more it costs, a cheaper supplier will enter the market and force the price down. Even the most green MBA understands this and I don't think I need to tell you that the VC's all understand this. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that you agree with that statement (if you don't, don't bother to argue with me, I'll ignore you, I'm not here to teach basic economics). So we've established that in an all free world, even though some money will change hands, it can't be significantly more than what it costs to perform whatever service is being provided. In other words, there is no extra money. Is that a problem? I think so. If you look at the history of the free software movement, it has been a history of imitation rather than one of innovation (sorry to sound like Bill Gates but he has a point here). Almost everything done in the free software world is a rewrite of something that already existed. The GNU folks have made it clear for years that what they wanted are free versions of the applications they consider to be useful. They don't spend much time talking about anything innovative, they talk about filling in the gaps where there is no free version of Word or whatever. Over and over, RMS says "you would better to not use $APP but instead dedicate some time to rewriting $APP so we have a free version". That's not innovation, that's imitation. Leaving aside the inevitable argument about whether or not the free software world is or is not innovative, let's look at what it takes to produce new things. The problem is that none of us have a real crystal ball. We don't know which ideas will take hold in the market and which won't. We can guess and maybe get lucky, but in general the guesses are wrong much more than they are right. Look at the history of startups. With all the screening that VC's do, all the due diligence, we still have failures of at least 9/10 and these days more like 99/100. For every Ebay or Google there are hundreds of startups which started about the same time as Ebay or Google but are are long and forgotten. If we look at the entire software development world as one big system, what history shows us is that the vast majority of the effort is wasted, only 1% of it succeeds (1%, 10%, pick your number, the vast majority of it fails). Let's say it is 10% of it that succeeds. Under the world RMS is proposing, not only is there no money to pay for the startup costs of that 10%, there is no money to pay for the 90% that doesn't succeed. Not from within the system, the only way that money can exist is if it is from people outside of the software world, every penny in the software world is spoken for. Let's say that I'm wrong, we can come up with enough extra money to pay for the 10% which is going to succeed. The problem is that we don't know in advance wich 10% will succeed, which means that we are really only funding 1/10th of the startups. Which slows down innovation to 1/10th the speed. I don't know about you, but that's not a world I want to live in. Google wouldn't exist in Richard's world, I know that for a fact. Sergey and Larry would have gone into some other field, they are ambitious people. Ditto for Ebay, Amazon, and any number of other companies which have become institutions. You may or may not still be reading, you may or may not agree, but my view is that Richard's proposed world is a very bleak sort of place. There won't be any companies coming out with new ideas to copy, there won't be the frenetic pace of innovation, it will be a sort of gray place, like selling washing machines. I don't know about you, but I like the world we live in. Yeah, the fact that Microsoft has the money really sucks but if that's the price I have to pay to get things like Google and Ebay and Amazon and Shutterfly and <fill in your favorite new software company here>, that's OK with me. You might want think about whether you would trade all of that for Richard's utopian world. Maybe you would, I wouldn't and I don't think very many other people would either. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun 2003-01-05 21:24 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Dimitrie O. Paun @ 2003-01-03 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On January 3, 2003 04:26 pm, Larry McVoy wrote: > If we look at the entire software development world as one big system, > what history shows us is that the vast majority of the effort is wasted, > only 1% of it succeeds (1%, 10%, pick your number, the vast majority of > it fails). Larry, in general I agree with you, but there are a number of things that you've touched upon which I feel need a bit of a debate. 1. Immitation vs. Inovation The free software world has started from 0 relatively recently. It is to be expected that we first fill in the gaps that are known to be useful, before we start experimenting. I don't think this is a major case against us. As for money that is fueling research, this is not quite so. It works well in telecom, it has a poor record in drug companies, it has a lousy record in software. For how much money MS has, what have they innovated? 2. Research & Money It seems to me that history has proven that the open ways of the scientific community has generated _order_ of magnitude more research than the closed business model. Not to mention mathematics. Software is a lot more like mathematics than a construction company. What have all this money produced in software that's we didn't do for free? You see, it is hard for me to say this since I am a 'rightist': I believe in the free market, capitalism, etc. But it certainly looks to me that software works out better in the open. And if that's the case, how do we avoid the bleak world you're painting? In all honesty, I don't know. But it might not be as ba as you make it to be. It might end up like science today: it doesn't pay to be a scientist, but I guess it's fun so people do it. Yeah, you will not have as much money to test all sort of silly ideas (the 99% that fails), but tell me, what do we get out of that? In a free software world, if there is a need for something, it will get done. Maybe not now, but in 6 month, or 1 year. Big deal. We don't need a Big Brother to invest large amounts of money to convince us that we _need_ his useless program. 3. All free software This, you know, we'll never happen. We have free software mostly in the world of consumer software, and really, it's only a handful of companies (MS mostly) that will lose if this turns free. But the vast majority of sofware is developed in house, for a client, and that can stay proprietary. We're talking mostly infrastructure (OS, X, Office) that need to be free. And we all benefit from it. The software that the banks use can stay proprietary and continue being shit as it is now. There's no inovation going on there, just mony thrown out the window. -- Dimi. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun @ 2003-01-05 21:24 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:08 ` Eric Ortega 2003-01-05 22:34 ` Ian Molton 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com> writes: > software. For how much money MS has, what have they innovated? Without Microsoft, there wouldn't be 2,4 GHz 32/64 bit microcomputers with 512 megabytes of main memory, 120 gigabytes of hard disk space and 1600x1200 pixels 32 bit resolution and 3d real time capability for < $1000 on sale at your local discount store. Simply because there wouldn't be a market for this. Face it. Microsoft Software is, what made the breakthrough to really put a powerful machine in every home and allow the 2-5% of the owner base which are Linux users to get really cheap commodity hardware. Not IBM did this. Not Commodore. Not Apple. Not Linux. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:24 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:08 ` Eric Ortega 2003-01-05 22:34 ` Ian Molton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eric Ortega @ 2003-01-05 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henning P. Schmiedehausen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 09:24:47PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com> writes: > > > software. For how much money MS has, what have they innovated? > > Without Microsoft, there wouldn't be 2,4 GHz 32/64 bit microcomputers > with 512 megabytes of main memory, ... Take this half-baked crap elsewhere. I don't lurk on this list for this drivel. Find some statistics or facts disproving that someone else would have filled this "void" and take your argument to someone who cares. HAND. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:24 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:08 ` Eric Ortega @ 2003-01-05 22:34 ` Ian Molton 2003-01-05 23:09 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Ian Molton @ 2003-01-05 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:24:47 +0000 (UTC) "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de> wrote: > Without Microsoft, there wouldn't be 2,4 GHz 32/64 bit microcomputers > with 512 megabytes of main memory, 120 gigabytes of hard disk space > and 1600x1200 pixels 32 bit resolution > Face it. Microsoft Software is, what made the breakthrough to really > put a powerful machine in every home and allow the 2-5% of the owner > base which are Linux users to get really cheap commodity hardware. <rant> BULLSHIT. it may have happened that way, but if M$ didnt do it it would STILL have happened. I was using 1600x1200 desktops on my Acorn RISC PC about a year, perhaps 2 years, before that sort of resolution was available on the majority of PCs. Before that I was using an ARM 2 and 3 based A410 which literally blew away all desktops available at the time (286, 386) in terms of performance. Even today, My A410 can play a game of DOOM at nearly 486 speeds, in truecolour! This hardware had a british designed processor (ARM) and no INTEL or such chips in sight. Windows never ran on it. Yet my 15 year old A410/1 remains one of the most useful machines in my house today, alongside an AthlonXP1800+ which, 15 years later, *STILL* doesnt have a DTP solution thats as easy to use as Ovation Pro or Impression Publisher were on the A410. Only a week ago I used the A410 to draw a PCB layout for an audio amplifier, using software which was supplied IN THE MACHINES ROM, along with the OS. I shall use the A410 to print the layout at 1200dpi onto transparent film, too. Not bad for free software on a 15 year old machine Oh, and the same 15 year old machine can manage a (doublescanned) 1600x600 screenmode too, using dual ported RAM, at negligible speed penalty. So dont give me this crap that only M$ could provide the sub 500ukp PC with bells and whitles. All M$ have done is force us all to use turbocharged versions of a jumped up washinmachine control microprocessor, and repeatedly upgrade it to keep up. No thanks. </rant> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 22:34 ` Ian Molton @ 2003-01-05 23:09 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> writes: >On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:24:47 +0000 (UTC) >"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de> wrote: >> Without Microsoft, there wouldn't be 2,4 GHz 32/64 bit microcomputers >> with 512 megabytes of main memory, 120 gigabytes of hard disk space >> and 1600x1200 pixels 32 bit resolution >> Face it. Microsoft Software is, what made the breakthrough to really ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> put a powerful machine in every home and allow the 2-5% of the owner ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> base which are Linux users to get really cheap commodity hardware. ><rant> >BULLSHIT. it may have happened that way, but if M$ didnt do it it would >STILL have happened. You might want to reread the underlined sentence. I have no doubts that there have been better, faster and easier to use machines long before the PC platform and Microsoft software. I actually owned an Acorn BBC a long time ago and it was a sweet little box. Just like the machine after it (which I didn't buy because I was already hooked on Amiga by then). But how many boxes did they sell? Did they achieve the "computer as a commodity" goal? And I didn't write at all that Microsoft gave you that computer. I said "they made it possible". Most surely you got your computer from Dell, HP, IBM or that computer store around the corner. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun @ 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 2:22 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 6:00 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 21:47 ` Roman Zippel 2003-01-05 11:15 ` Eric W. Biederman 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Larry, I know your post was directed at RMS, however I felt inspired to respond :) Perhaps there is an alternate outcome to the future you see, bare with me. On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that somehow > progress will continue to be made once you have that freedom. Let's just > look at that for a minute and see if that makes sense. > > Postulate that all the software in the world is GPLed. All of it. That's > your goal as far as I can make out, but let's not argue about if it is or > is not, it doesn't matter. > > Anyone who wants to build on that software can, there is almost perfect > code reuse. Again, something I think you want, certainly a nice idea. Add to this: No Software patents or greatly shorting the length of software patents. All hardware specs are published. > > Because all the software is freely available, this sets an upper bound > on how much any company can charge for it. If the amount they charge > for gathering it up and making a distribution, for example, is low > enough that other people look at it and think that's too little money > for that much work, then their prices will hold. On the other hand, > if they are charging twice that, another company can spring up which > grabs the software and sells it for the lower price, a price low enough > that no cheaper company can come in. Obviously, the first company either > drops their prices or goes out of business. You seem to view software like a chair or a box of legos? Something that is designed, implemented and then sold. This is the predominant view, perhaps software can be thought of as simply: Ideas + Skill + Time + Natural Resources. [Snip] > If there is no barrier to entry and a supplier is charging more it > costs, a cheaper supplier will enter the market and force the price down. > Even the most green MBA understands this and I don't think I need to tell > you that the VC's all understand this. For the sake of discussion, let's > assume that you agree with that statement (if you don't, don't bother > to argue with me, I'll ignore you, I'm not here to teach basic economics). > > So we've established that in an all free world, even though some money > will change hands, it can't be significantly more than what it costs > to perform whatever service is being provided. In other words, there > is no extra money. > Am I correct in thinking that your two primary goals in relation to software development are?: 1) For _individuals_ to make a good/great living. 2) Software is constantly improved/evolves and that new and innovative ideas have fertile ground to develop in. If so, I believe we are in complete agreement thus far. > Leaving aside the inevitable argument about whether or not the free > software world is or is not innovative, let's look at what it takes > to produce new things. The problem is that none of us have a real > crystal ball. We don't know which ideas will take hold in the market > and which won't. We can guess and maybe get lucky, but in general the > guesses are wrong much more than they are right. Look at the history > of startups. With all the screening that VC's do, all the due diligence, > we still have failures of at least 9/10 and these days more like 99/100. > For every Ebay or Google there are hundreds of startups which started > about the same time as Ebay or Google but are are long and forgotten. > [Snip] In a world where all software is "Free Software" does it not make more sense to view the "costs" of software development as being equal to ideas+time+skill+available resources? You must have the idea/problem/design to begin a software project. You must have the time and skill available to complete the design or solve the problem. Reusable code decreases the amount of time and perhaps skill required to complete software tasks. I would argue that most of the problems you see in a 100% "Free Software" World come from a large Enterprise/corporate mind set, where large Sums of VC money is required to fund projects. I see a possible future where software development is seen much like getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. It's labor+materials. With the advantage that in software world materials are reusable, the tools are plentiful and affordable (well most anyways). In this World it's the software developers who are sought after... not the VC money. Could this Free Software world support Microsoft or it's ilk? No. Could it feed the families of millions of software developers? I believe so. Shane R. Stixrud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 2:22 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 6:00 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shane R. Stixrud Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, Beth Van Eman Another long rant worth reading in my opinion... Explains how Google helped the birth of our son. On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 04:55:22PM -0800, Shane R. Stixrud wrote: > I would argue that most of the problems you see in a 100% "Free > Software" World come from a large Enterprise/corporate mind set, where large > Sums of VC money is required to fund projects. I see a > possible future where software development is seen much like getting your > roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. It's > labor+materials. And therein lies the problem. You and RMS agree, in his world it is like getting your roof repaired or a new washing machine installed. That's not the world in which we currently live. Our world is much more exciting than that. Every day there is a new thing, it's not a roof, it's not a washing machine, it's Ebay. Nothing like it existed ever before. It's those new things which change our lives for the better that are cool. In the world that you are describing, software becomes like a toaster, you just go get one and the only difference is if it is white or black. In our current world, there are new things every day. We don't understand them at first but in time we learn their value and, after doing so, would never want to be without them. Here is an example. Google. I was the 4th person at Google, even though I was only there for a few months, I got a feel for the people and the place (very cool people, BTW). Anyway, I had left Google, a year or so had passed, and they were out there and useful. My wife Beth and I were having our first son, Travis. As it turned out, he showed up 5 weeks early. We were unprepared, Beth's water broke, we didn't realize what that meant but we went to the hospital to check it out and they wouldn't let us go home. They wanted to induce her with drugs (stuff that would force her to go into contractions and make the baby come out). You need to realize that neither of us had a clue. I had some sensation that this wasn't right, I got on the phone with my sister who had 4 kids, on the phone with an instructor who was teaching us about the birth process. Both of them told us "keep that baby in there as long as you can". But neither could tell me why, they just "knew" it was right. I trusted them but the doctor was screaming at Beth "if that baby doesn't come out right now it could DIE! It's going to get an infection, that's what happens when your water breaks". Beth is crying, she doesn't know what to think. I don't trust the doctor, I think he's an asshole, but I have no data to back up my feeling. Being the geek that I am, I had not one but two laptops with me. I plug one in and dial up. Hit Google and search on "infection premature baby" or something like that. Within 30 seconds I'm reading a New England Journal of Medicine article (one of the best if you don't know) about infection rates in women who's water breaks early. It said that there was basically no difference, less than one percent. I shove this in the asshole docter's face and say "what about this?" He backed down a bit and the baby stayed in there for another 30 hours or so. Then Beth was induced and Travis (http://www.bitmover.com/lm/nikon/1999-APR/21.html) came out and was a happy healthy baby. Much later I dug into this and found out the coolness which is the human body. It turns out that your lungs are one of the last things to develop and if you pull a baby out early there is a very high chance that the lungs will be all screwed up. "Screwed up" means that the baby spends a month or two in neonatal care and you get to visit him once in a while (you REALLY don't want this, it's bad). On the other hand, it also turns out that if the water breaks the system recognizes that and turns up the clock on the lung development. That extra day inside made a huge difference in terms of lung development. I'm completely convinced, based on what I've read, that that was the difference between our baby going home with us and staying at the hospital for a couple of months. And we owe it all to Google. To my dieing day I will be grateful to the Google team, I shudder to think what it would have been like without them. And Google exists because Larry and Sergey want to be rich. It's as simple as that. They are extremely talented and dedicated people, I have nothing but respect for them. But it was clear that they were shrewdly building something they knew was valuable and they wanted to turn it into a business. If they had known that if they built it and anyone could steal their technology because it was all free software, there is ZERO chance that they would have done it. They are bright people, they would have found some other way to use their talents. For me, it's a damn good thing that they live in our current world, not your world or RMS' world. Those are gray, boring, dull worlds. No thanks. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 2:22 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Matthew D. Pitts 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, Beth Van Eman On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > And therein lies the problem. You and RMS agree, in his world it is > like getting your roof repaired or a new washing machine installed. I only agree with RMS to a point. Something like google or Ebay would still be very much possible in a world where most software was GPLed/BSD/etc.. Why wouldn't it be? > And we owe it all to Google. To my dieing day I will be grateful to the > Google team, I shudder to think what it would have been like without them. > And Google exists because Larry and Sergey want to be rich. It's as > simple as that. They are extremely talented and dedicated people, I > have nothing but respect for them. But it was clear that they were > shrewdly building something they knew was valuable and they wanted to > turn it into a business. [snip] For every Larry and Sergey, I am sure you know ten Tom, Dick and Harry's who slave away doing amazing things at a large software development house. Besides, my reading of the GPL suggests you only need to publish source code _IF_ you distribute it to a 3rd party. In house software development would not qualify. > > If they had known that if they built it and anyone could steal their > technology because it was all free software, there is ZERO chance that > they would have done it. They are bright people, they would have found > some other way to use their talents. For me, it's a damn good thing > that they live in our current world, not your world or RMS' world. > Those are gray, boring, dull worlds. No thanks. > Again I don't see why Google or Ebay wouldn't exist in a Free Software world nor do I see why Larry and Sergey wouldn't make a butt load. I think it is important to remember that copyright law was not designed to make you or anyone else "rich". Copyright law is concerned with promoting societies progress. Shane ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Matthew D. Pitts 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Matthew D. Pitts @ 2003-01-04 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shane R. Stixrud, Larry McVoy Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, Beth Van Eman Shane, > I think it is important to remember that copyright law was not designed to > make you or anyone else "rich". Copyright law is concerned with > promoting societies progress. > > Shane If you had written this a hundred years ago, it might have been more true. The fact is, in the US anyway, copyright law has become totally unrecognisable to what the Founding Fathers meant it to be. Matthew D. Pitts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 2:22 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 6:00 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-01-04 6:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shane R. Stixrud Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Shane R. Stixrud wrote: > I see a possible future where software development is seen much like > getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. > It's labor+materials. Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior. Well, I certainly feel terribly cheated by the cruel world that has pretty much obsoleted the career choice "weaver" ;-)) - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 6:00 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 7:45 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger Cc: Shane R. Stixrud, Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 03:00:07AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote: > Shane R. Stixrud wrote: > > I see a possible future where software development is seen much like > > getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. > > It's labor+materials. > Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work > process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict > imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty > of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior. If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance. Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal... mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 7:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 8:36 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 8:52 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke Cc: Werner Almesberger, Shane R. Stixrud, Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 03:00:07AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote: > > Shane R. Stixrud wrote: > > > I see a possible future where software development is seen much like > > > getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. > > > It's labor+materials. > > Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work > > process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict > > imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty > > of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior. > > If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one > house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the > roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that > make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man > starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance. You mean like today with everyone in the great dot-bomb failure, because giving it all way is what happened a few years back, and they are now gone. > Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of > labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being > properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design > of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't > give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal... Careful, the arguement will shift to, this is a public building and thus the blueprints will be placed in a public record, in time. Please keep up the good work of teaching, I am impressed you have the ability to not shread people after you have explained it six ways from sunday and they still do not get it. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 7:45 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-04 8:36 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 8:52 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-01-04 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke Cc: Shane R. Stixrud, Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Mark Mielke wrote: > Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of > labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being > properly understood. The basic issue of how well you can live by performing certain work is exactly the same. And in both cases, the incorrect assumptions are to underestimate the potential for changes, and to look for a transition that is risk-free. (*) (*) Paranoiac's Categorical Imperative: if there's a risk for anybody, there could also be a risk for me, so I must oppose it. > A closer comparison would be to compare the design > of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't > give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal... If we sent our kids to school, they could learn to do our jobs. That would be suicidal... ;-) Besides, nobody said that developing free software requires you to decline being compensated for your work. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 7:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 8:36 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-01-04 8:52 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 9:16 ` Mark Mielke 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Mark Mielke wrote: > If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one > house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the > roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that > make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man > starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance. > > Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of > labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being > properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design > of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't > give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal... > Your position is based on the flawed assumption that the software world will ever have enough functionality or run out of problems to solve. Even in the roofing analogy its not every house has the same roof. Software is only going to get more complex not less. This is my last off topic post, sorry for the wasted bits. Shane. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 8:52 ` Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 9:16 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shane R. Stixrud; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:52:26AM -0800, Shane R. Stixrud wrote: > Your position is based on the flawed assumption that the software world > will ever have enough functionality or run out of problems to solve. Even > in the roofing analogy its not every house has the same roof. Software is > only going to get more complex not less. My position is based on the observation that quite a significant portion of features implemented for open source projects such as Linux are provided by people that *cannot* directly benefit from the fruits of their labour. Post a problem, or a bug report, and it is *likely* that somebody will try to solve your problem, even if they do not have your hardware, or their paying job does not relate to the open source project at all. It is based on good will, glory, thrill, enjoyment, distraction, and many other benefits that do not put food on the table for your benefactor's family. This balance needs to be respected, not insulted. nVidia's driver is not a patch to the roof of your house. nVidia's driver is software that is released to allow Linux users the freedom to use nVidia hardware. nVidia makes a lot more money from MSWIN32 users that it does on Linux users. The software is protected either because nVidia does not believe it is legal to distribute the source to their code, or because they do not believe the benefits are worth the hassle. The Linux community cannot lose something that it never had in the first place. Some people think that every company that needs an enhancement is willing to pay people to enhance open source products, and that the result will be returned to the public. The only real way that I can see this working is if the Linux community as a whole created a world-wide union that required all companies that wished to enhance Linux would use to provide the enhancement. The pool of developers in this union would be organized by knowledge and skill. The union representantives would negotiate fair trades with companies, encouraging companies to pool resources for features that are needed by several companies. Anything less is a little bit wishy washy. Maybe companies will pay to have features implemented. Maybe companies will return the features to the public. Maybe companies won't wait until somebody does it for free. Maybe people who spend 37.5 hours a week working on Linux will have food on the table for their family. Maybe a system exists. Maybe companies know about the system. Feeding ones family cannot be based on maybe. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud @ 2003-01-04 21:47 ` Roman Zippel 2003-01-05 11:15 ` Eric W. Biederman 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-01-04 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Hi, Larry McVoy wrote: Somehow I tried to stay out of this, but I simply can't leave this uncommented. Another long rant, better don't read this if you want to keep your limitless optimism. > The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that somehow > progress will continue to be made once you have that freedom. Let's just > look at that for a minute and see if that makes sense. > > [...] > > We can argue about this until the cows come up but it's simple economics. > If there is no barrier to entry and a supplier is charging more it > costs, a cheaper supplier will enter the market and force the price down. > Even the most green MBA understands this and I don't think I need to tell > you that the VC's all understand this. For the sake of discussion, let's > assume that you agree with that statement (if you don't, don't bother > to argue with me, I'll ignore you, I'm not here to teach basic economics). > > So we've established that in an all free world, even though some money > will change hands, it can't be significantly more than what it costs > to perform whatever service is being provided. In other words, there > is no extra money. > > Is that a problem? I think so. If you look at the history of the free > software movement, it has been a history of imitation rather than one of > innovation (sorry to sound like Bill Gates but he has a point here). You really shouldn't use economics to argue against free software, you will only lose badly. You make it sound as if imitation would be a bad thing, but without imitation there would be no competition and without competition there would be no incentive to innovate. Your remaining argumentation basically says, that we should give up a little bit of our freedom to sell it for money. Will it work? Maybe, the question is just for how long. To stay competitive there are basically only two ways, either you destroy the competition or you offer better conditions than your competition. It should be more or less obvious, why the first is a bad idea. The constant force to undercut the competition has driven innovation, but this is more and more becoming a curse. The innovation cycles are becoming shorter and shorter, which makes it more and more difficult to get the investments back. So the need to make money will soon rather cause stagnation. Why is VC needed in first place and why is it not possible to grow slowly anymore? Development costs? Not really, it's mainly because you have to occupy a market as quickly as possible to still make any money at all. Afterwards you want to protect your market share and so any revolution will turn conservative. You can blame whoever you want, but it's unavoidable that it's soon not possible anymore to finance innovation, all you can do is to slow down the development, but it's just a matter of time. Already now a lot of companies are still busy to get their investments back, banks are sitting on a lot of bad credits and at some point they want their money back. Are they really interested in new competition? The last years we lived vastly beyond our possibilities and we have become very dependent on growth to pay our past debts. This slowly doesn't work anymore, globalization is over, there will be no significant growth anymore, all what is left is a cruel fight over market shares. The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that the current system will somehow continue forever and it's the current system that makes less and less sense. It's very possible that in a few years you will be thankful to have that freedom that you're now so willing to give up. It's indeed all basic economics, you just have to put aside the blind faith in money for a moment. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-04 21:47 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-01-05 11:15 ` Eric W. Biederman 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-01-05 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-04 3:10 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 21:17 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:30:32PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be > > hampered if you successfully prove that [non-free] modules for > > Linux are illegal. > I'm not trying to prove this--as I see it, Linus gave permission for > them, which means they are legal. I regret his decision to do this, > but I cannot change it. You can't "regret" a decision that somebody else has made. To "regret" something means to feel sorry for something. You don't have anything to be sorry about. > But let's suppose that that were changed. It would not affect your > "freedom" to use Linux (and GNU/Linux), only whether it runs on a > certain computer. It is true that this might mean a practical > sacrifice--you might have to get a different kind of computer, for > instance. I don't see that as a horrible thing. We look for > computers that work with free drivers; you can too. You are limited the scope of this discussion to hardware. For an example of a software module that I regularly use in my every day job, consider the MVFS module used to allow dynamic file system access to ClearCase views. The MVFS module comes with the ClearCase distribution as a small bit of open source glue, and a closed source object file that implements MVFS. > You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In > the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free > GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together > for the freedom of the system. I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. > You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable > forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not. > If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist. > GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have > freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work > to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will > still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it. I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people will have no choice but to follow your lead. Visionaries should have faith in their own vision. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke ` (2 more replies) 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people to reject non-free software and write free replacements. Allowing non-free modules (whether they are open-source or not) weakens the impetus for people to make free extensions to Linux. The general attitude Linux developers take towards non-free software also weakens it. Your own message, citing this gap in Linux, will tend to discourage people from working to close the gap. All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU system, but what system you use is not really important except to you. If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our community's loss. Spurring the broader development of free software should be higher priority than keeping you as a user. I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people will have no choice but to follow your lead. Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views. It is the system of non-free software that resembles Stalinism. For more about this, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html. Visionaries should have faith in their own vision. Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change society. Sustained effort is necessary. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 2:22 ` venom 2003-01-05 9:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-05 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:44:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules > were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this > configuration, and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and > not Linux. > You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free > software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will > people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by > what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people > to reject non-free software and write free replacements. In the *mean time*, I need a practical response, and not a claim that 'in a more perfect world, such and such'. If binary-only modules are illegal, then I lose the freedom to legally use Linux + ClearCase MVFS. You attach the word freedom to everything that suits your own political agenda, but you refuse to allow me to use the word freedom in the above context? Do you have a trademark on the word freedom? > All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU > system, but what system you use is not really important except to you. > If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our > community's loss. Spurring the broader development of free software > should be higher priority than keeping you as a user. The point where you are wrong, is that if I found it inconvenient to use Linux, because I was not free to make use of closed source products, or kernel modules as part of my operating environment, I would not be able to contribute to Linux development. The point is more visible for those in this mailing list who contribute a substantial amount. > I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer > or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people > will have no choice but to follow your lead. > Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable > that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this > because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views. Actually I put the hammer/sickle reference above as an amusement, and not a claim that you are communist. (Although -- as I understand it, the more perfect society that would allow GPL to thrive *is* a communist society -- which would be wonderful, if such a political system could be proven to be feasible) > Visionaries should have faith in their own vision. > Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change > society. Sustained effort is necessary. Traditional (not *REAL*) visionaries that have incomplete visions, where the vision cannot be easily transferred from person to person without mutating, or losing its scope, are forced to sustain their efforts as a physical effort. *REAL* visions are like viruses. All you need to do is transfer the vision from one person to the next, and each time the image is transferred, the next person takes up the cross as their own, with all of the energy and motivation that the original visionary possessed. You don't need to threaten people, or demean their methods in order to propagate a *REAL* vision. Transfer of the vision is all that is necessary. The people will see the light. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel In the *mean time*, I need a practical response, and not a claim that 'in a more perfect world, such and such'. If binary-only modules are illegal, then I lose the freedom to legally use Linux + ClearCase MVFS. You would be unable to do that unless/until someone (perhaps you?) wrote a free implementation of MVFS for Linux. Whether you can use GNU/Linux with ClearCase's non-free MVFS implementation is not terribly important for our community. I would not base my decisions on that factor. It is not worth changing a license on a program just so that a small segment of computer users might use a program *today* rather than waiting. Enabling you and others to access MVFS with free software is the right solution. It may take longer, but it really solves the problem. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Traditional (not *REAL*) visionaries that have incomplete visions, where the vision cannot be easily transferred from person to person without mutating, or losing its scope, are forced to sustain their efforts as a physical effort. *REAL* visions are like viruses. All you need to do is transfer the vision from one person to the next, and each time the image is transferred, the next person takes up the cross as their own, with all of the energy and motivation that the original visionary possessed. These definitions equate "real" with "complete" with "transmitted perfectly reliability". I don't agree with that equation, but you and I both observe that the vision of free software transmits with less than perfect reliability. Many successful social movements have been less than "real" in your terms. Success requires persistent work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-05 2:22 ` venom 2003-01-05 9:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: venom @ 2003-01-05 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:38 -0500 > From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > To: mark@mark.mielke.cc > Cc: billh@gnuppy.monkey.org, paul@clubi.ie, riel@conectiva.com.br, > Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? > > I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules > were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, > and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. > > You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free > software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will > people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by > what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people > to reject non-free software and write free replacements. > Seeing this duscussion, I think that it will go for a lot of time, and none will change his own position. Because I "mostly" agree with free software goals, (not about this discussion, where I have a different opinion) I would like to make some points why it will not possible to find an agreement point beetwen contendants. That is possibly one of the most interesting point. - I am free because I have the freedom of choicheing the software I do prefer, even non free-software nor open source - I am free because I use just free-software that is the instrumentum that warrants my freedom Untill the real meaning of what is intended by being free will not be defined, it is very difficoult to avoid this dual opposition. That is a very important point, because you won't be able to have a clear discussion with many of the subscribers of this mailing list, simply because the mean a different application of freedom. > Allowing non-free modules (whether they are open-source or not) > weakens the impetus for people to make free extensions to Linux. The > general attitude Linux developers take towards non-free software also > weakens it. Your own message, citing this gap in Linux, will tend to > discourage people from working to close the gap. > To be honest this is just partially true. Please consider the new modules infrastructure with workqueue in 2.5 kernels. Non GPL modules have a big penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default one. > All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU > system, but what system you use is not really important except to you. > If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our > community's loss. This, as you answer to Mark, is another point that makes me curious. If, just supposing, I am using bash emacs gcc and other free software on HP-UX, or AIX, or Solaris, to do my work. I am not complitelly free, because the kernel and some of the utility of the system are not free. then what is exactly my condition? I should be half-free. And that seems mutch to me quite similar to the Aristotelian distiction beetwen sapiens (free) and savius (half free). But then free software is ported, rightly, on all platform, included M$ (my syster uses bash and emacs and TeX in W2000, when we talk about tastes...) > Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable > that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this > because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views. Who call you comunist is simply showing that he is complitelly ignorant about what comunism is. I suppose they use the word comunism because they give to it a bad meaning. It is just a loose of time to consider argumentation of people who use the "comunist" definition just because they suppose this word should make a bad impression, and maybe should scare. [of topic] Socialism, socialdemocracy and comunisms (there are more than one comunism) are philosofical and political systems that have really nothing to do with the idea that most of people in the world have about them, because of the leninist comunism (see "the three theories of socialdemocracy, written by Lenin). But I see in this the bad influence of a cultural propaganda made in USA in the fifties. Where I live there has been the time when propaganda said that comunist eat children. Well, in Italy the comunist party was around 30% by that times, and we never saw this cannibalism. Half Europe has social and social democratic government, and nowhere there is a law against private property. And nowhere in Europe the modern comunist parties are proposing an abolition of private property. [/of topic] > > It is the system of non-free software that resembles Stalinism. For > more about this, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html. I partially agree. I would say that closed source software sometimes remembers me stalinism. When it comes to other non free-software, but anyway open source licenses it depends of the license terms. I do suppose that at the beginning some of your oppositors used the term comunist simply because the feeling of rigidity that they could smell from your words. Or maybe because the comunist party is known because of the strong discipline of its members, where they could discuss very hard on topics, but when a decision was made, all members were defending and sustaining and sharing the opinion of the party. You cannot expect that everyone should share complitelly your opinions, but, as it is normal, he could share some point, and be critical about some other. Tha is the way that culture make its own progress. > > Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change > society. Sustained effort is necessary. > That is exactly what is your right to do, and personally I thank you for this. But sustained effort does not mean to make a war against every minimal disagreement from a walled opinion. And that is why this discussion will never end even with people on lkml, who should/could be the ones nearest to share at less the most part of your view. Luigi Genoni ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-05 2:22 ` venom @ 2003-01-05 9:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-01-05 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Linux Kernel Development On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules > were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, > and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. > > You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free > software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will > people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by People are already working on it: http://www.advogato.org/proj/Katie/ Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:10 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-05 22:22 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes: >I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules >were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, >and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. No, it wouldn't. Thats' what most people don't understand. You wouldn't have a license to GIVE AWAY a system which consists of Linux kernel and MVFS object module. You definitely have a license to get a Linux system, install it, run it and install on it every piece of software you like. If you install MVFS, there is nothing in the GPL to prevent you from this. Neither in the GPL nor in the Linux-modified version of "you may load binary modules" GPL. This is your personal decision of your personal system. If you install a module that is binary only, fine. GPL is about SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION. Not about SOFTWARE USAGE. I know (and I read this in many of his postings) that RMS likes to blur this point into "if it is not free, you must not use it with GPL software", but this is simply _NOT TRUE_. It is your personal freedom to choose and use a binary module. If you redistribute it, you may take freedom from the recipient away and this prohibits the GPL. But not your personal usage. Sheesh. I have lots of kernel modules in current use which will never be released outside the scope of my own boxes. That's no breach of the GPL. You'll never be able to acquire either a source or a binary code license. This is my code. You cannot have it. My freedom to decide so. End of story. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:10 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-05 22:22 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-05 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henning P. Schmiedehausen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes: > > >I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules > >were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, > >and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. > > No, it wouldn't. Thats' what most people don't understand. You > wouldn't have a license to GIVE AWAY a system which consists of Linux > kernel and MVFS object module. > > You definitely have a license to get a Linux system, install it, run > it and install on it every piece of software you like. If you install > MVFS, there is nothing in the GPL to prevent you from this. Neither in > the GPL nor in the Linux-modified version of "you may load binary > modules" GPL. This is your personal decision of your personal > system. If you install a module that is binary only, fine. > > GPL is about SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION. Not about SOFTWARE USAGE. I know > (and I read this in many of his postings) that RMS likes to blur this > point into "if it is not free, you must not use it with GPL software", > but this is simply _NOT TRUE_. It is your personal freedom to choose > and use a binary module. If you redistribute it, you may take freedom > from the recipient away and this prohibits the GPL. But not your > personal usage. Sweet, and true. The effect is shipping a binary alone without its associated kernel is the distribution of a product independent. One other point, about RMS and FSF ... They have no stake or holding in the linux kernel, only a license about distribution. So when the poke there nose in this issue and interfere in the operations and business, they are exposing themselves to litigation. This was an interesting point made to me and I think it needs research. Something else that needs research is a linuxgram story which I am having trouble tracking down. It has something to say about a FSF/GPL certification audit for $25,000.00, regardless if it is open or closed. If this is true, a conflict of interest, and a huge grey area is worthly of investigation. The questions to ask: Who has requested certification? Who has passed? Who has failed? Has any one failed? If the last question is answered by "none" ... > Sheesh. I have lots of kernel modules in current use which will never > be released outside the scope of my own boxes. That's no breach of the > GPL. You'll never be able to acquire either a source or a binary code > license. This is my code. You cannot have it. My freedom to decide so. > End of story. Thanks is has been fun and informative. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:10 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-05 22:22 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-05 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henning P. Schmiedehausen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 09:33:48PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes: > >I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules > >were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration, > >and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux. > No, it wouldn't. Thats' what most people don't understand. You > wouldn't have a license to GIVE AWAY a system which consists of Linux > kernel and MVFS object module. > ... Just to point out - I said "If closed source modules were to be disallowed,". Also - the question isn't whether closed source modules can be distributed, as much as "can closed source modules that could not be compiled without GPL source code (header files), be distributed?" RMS wishes my configuration (Linux + ClearCase MVFS) to be illegal, because he wishes to enforce an all-free ("free" as defined by RMS) final product, and the existence of closed-source hardware drivers (nVidia) or software extensions (ClearCase MVFS) are in the way of this goal. If he succeeds, I may lose the freedom to effectively use Linux, because I don't *mind* buying good software, and I don't *mind* if it is closed source. Why don't I mind? Because, with few exceptions, closed source software for expensive price tags tends to be better, or fuller in some way, in my experience. We live in a capitalist society. Pretending that capitalism can be avoided is... not realistic. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-04 3:10 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 21:17 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-04 3:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:30:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In >the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free >GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together >for the freedom of the system. But I don't want to coerce other people into providing me with my freedom. >If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will >change. Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by restrictive licenses. >I don't support the open source movement, but I know what they say >about this. They say that open source usually leads to more powerful >and reliable software. Nothing assures us that will persuade all >companies to adopt the practice. You have simplified their position >to a point where they would not recognize it. The point is not to persuade companies to adopt the practice. The point is to show that the practice is superior and let the companies that adopt it prosper and those who don't fail. The GPL weakens this position by providing proprietary software with an excuse. It is roughly comparable to the United States embargo on Cuba. We want Cuba to change, so we don't let them use any of our stuff. Force them to be free, or we won't touch 'em. It fails for the same reason. If you believe in freedom, set the example. Set people free. Defend fair use, first sale, and a very strict definition of a derived work. That's real freedom, and the GPL works against it by attempting to coerce freedom by using legal tools that problably shouldn't exist. >You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable >forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not. No. We're saying that we shouldn't try to rig the system. We should allow free software to win in a fair fight. Not by using vicious legal tools to coerce others to provide your freedom. >If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist. >GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have >freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work >to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will >still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it. Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken fair use and first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's a derived work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 3:10 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 0:17 ` David Schwartz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: davids; +Cc: linux-kernel Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken fair use and first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's a derived work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else? >If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will >change. Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by restrictive licenses. The Open Source Movement says that will happen; when it does, that's good, but if we had relied on that to give us freedom, we wouldn't have any free operating systems today. In the Free Software Movement we think freedom is worth working for. If companies don't choose to respect our freedom, we don't cite that and say "it's hopeless" and we don't say that makes non-freedom ok. We write free replacements and build freedom for ourselves--and for you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-05 0:17 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 4:39 ` Wolfgang Walter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken >fair use and >first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's >a derived >work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. >Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else? Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person who did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work. Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied to kernel modules that only include header files. You may not explicitly endorse the obvious logical consequences of your views, but you are still responsible for them. >>If open source is so good, companies with closed source products >>will >>change. >Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by >restrictive >licenses. >The Open Source Movement says that will happen; when it does, that's >good, but if we had relied on that to give us freedom, we wouldn't >have any free operating systems today. That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to providing our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a person to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only talking about their control over what they added. When a person creates a derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control over their work from them. This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. They call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce. Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom of ownership. >In the Free Software Movement we think freedom is worth working for. >If companies don't choose to respect our freedom, we don't cite that >and say "it's hopeless" and we don't say that makes non-freedom ok. >We write free replacements and build freedom for ourselves--and for >you. This is false for two reasons: 1) The difference between the GPL and the BSD license is the GPL license *compels* source distribution. You can't compel someone else to make you free. It's just not going to work. 2) To make the GPL enforceable, you need to argue for a very loose definition of a derived work and you need to argue that a license can be enforceable even if it's not negotiated or explicitly agreed to prior to distribution. This will have the net effect of reducing everyone's freedom in very real ways. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 0:17 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 4:39 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-05 5:35 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Wolfgang Walter @ 2003-01-05 4:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > >Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken > >fair use and > >first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's > >a derived > >work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. > > > >Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else? > > Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person who > did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work. > Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied > to kernel modules that only include header files. > You seem not to understand copyright. The GPL does not affect the user of the software. If you have bought a copy of Red Linux distribution cd i.a. it is not necessary to accept the GPL (or BSD or whatever license) to use the software. You may sell your received copy when ever you want to ever you want for whatever price you can get - if you do not keep a copy. As you can do with microsoft windows - if you bought it (and did not licensed it from microsoft). I.a. it is not necessary to provide source code because it is Red Hat which a) made the copy and b) did so by accepting the GPL. But if you want to make and use or distribute copies of that CD or distributed works, well, then you must get explicit permission from the copyright owners - as you would have to for any copyrightable work. This is so because of copyright law. If you buy the software you only have the right to use it. You do not have by default the right to distribute copies, make or distribute derived works etc. If the CD would be a copy of microsoft windows you would have to negotiate with microsoft - probably they would not allow that you distribute a derived version. Now the authors of the software on the Red Hat CD make you an offer: you may accept the GPL. If you do so, they allow you to make and distribute copies or derived works under certain conditions. You don't have to accept the GPL. If you do not, you may try to negotiate for other terms with the copyright holders. > That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to providing > our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a person > to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only talking > about their control over what they added. When a person creates a Do you understand? You are not allowed to produce derived works without permission of the copyright owner. He may do so under what consitions he want (or simply does not allow you to do so at all). With the GPL the copyright owner(s) of the work grants you the right to do so under certain conditions described under the GPL. One right is to produce derived works at all and Have you ever got permission from microsoft or adobe to produce derived works from windows 2000 or photoshop? > derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the > value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control over > their work from them. No, they allow you to do the work at all. By default you would not be allowed to add value at all. > > This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. They > call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce. > Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom of > ownership. No. The authors of the work has with your words - the "ownership" of his work. Law says that one facete of that "ownership" is that he may allow or forbid derived works. And if he allows someone to produce a derived work its under his conditions. The GPL does not restrict you. Contrary, it uses copyright law to establish a pool of software with much more freedom as copyright law gives to you. It only does not give you so much freedom to deny other people the same freedoms. The copyright holders can only do so, because copyright law itself give you none of these rights at all. Richard Stallmann - if I understand him right - beliefs that the rights the GPL grants should be granted (for software) by copyright law itself and therefor granted for every software. You may argument about that. But you cant't argument that an author as owner of his work should use a less restrictive license than the GPL so you can make a derived work and distribute it under a more restrictive license than GPL. Why should he want to allow that at all (a lot of peoply allow that choosing a BSD-license - nice gift)? Nobody can force him to do so. Its not the GPL which restricts your freedom, it is copyright law and the author(s) of the work you want to made a derived work from. It is simply impossible that authors have control under which condition derived works may be made from their works AND in the same time have the right to made derived works from works of other authors without control of these authors. By the way: a completely different question is if a work is a derived work. Is a driver for nvidia a derived work. Well, the GPL can not define that, of course - because it only applies to derived works. No license can that. A licence may state what it will not regard as a derived work. The courts decide what is a derived work. The courts decide that your book with a main character named Harry Potter, wizard studying in Hogwards, is a derived work from 4 those well known Rowling-books and that you may not distribute it without permission. Greetings, Wolfgang Walter -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts EDV Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München Tel: +49 89 38196-276 Fax: +49 89 38196-144 wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de http://www.studentenwerk.mhn.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 4:39 ` Wolfgang Walter @ 2003-01-05 5:35 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-06 16:24 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ml-linux-kernel; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote: >On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote: >>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >>>Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken >>>fair use and >>>first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header >>>it's >>>a derived >>>work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. >>> >>>Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else? >> >> Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person >>who >>did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work. >>Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied >>to kernel modules that only include header files. >You seem not to understand copyright. I don't see what gives you this impression. >The GPL does not affect the user of the software. If you have bought >a copy of >Red Linux distribution cd i.a. it is not necessary to accept the GPL >(or BSD >or whatever license) to use the software. You may sell your received >copy >when ever you want to ever you want for whatever price you can get - >if you >do not keep a copy. As you can do with microsoft windows - if you >bought it >(and did not licensed it from microsoft). I.a. it is not necessary >to provide >source code because it is Red Hat which a) made the copy and b) did >so by >accepting the GPL. Right. >But if you want to make and use or distribute copies of that CD or >distributed >works, well, then you must get explicit permission from the >copyright owners >- as you would have to for any copyrightable work. This is so >because of >copyright law. If you buy the software you only have the right to >use it. You >do not have by default the right to distribute copies, make or >distribute >derived works etc. You have those rights the law gives you and those rights that the copyright holder chooses to give you in the transfer agreement. >Now the authors of the software on the Red Hat CD make you an offer: >you may >accept the GPL. If you do so, they allow you to make and distribute >copies or >derived works under certain conditions. You don't have to accept the >GPL. If >you do not, you may try to negotiate for other terms with the >copyright >holders. Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You already have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you agree to a license that you are not free to negotiate. >> That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to >>providing >>our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a >>person >>to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only >>talking >>about their control over what they added. When a person creates a >Do you understand? You are not allowed to produce derived works >without >permission of the copyright owner. He may do so under what >conditions he want >(or simply does not allow you to do so at all). This is the same for use. If Microsoft wants to, they can impose any terms in the EULA that they want. >With the GPL the copyright owner(s) of the work grants you the right >to do so >under certain conditions described under the GPL. One right is to >produce >derived works at all and >Have you ever got permission from microsoft or adobe to produce >derived works >from windows 2000 or photoshop? Microsoft doesn't try to argue that every document I write in Windows 2000 is a derived work. Photoshop doesn't argue that every image I create in photoshop is a derived work. All you can do with a header file is include it in your own code. All you can do with photoshop is produce photoshop files. Adobe doesn't argue that photoshop-created images are derived works. Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works. To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of derived works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop. Far smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap. >>derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the >>value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control >>over >>their work from them. >No, they allow you to do the work at all. By default you would not >be allowed >to add value at all. Yes, but this is *use*, which is what the GPL is *not* supposed to stop. How can you use photoshop except to create images with it? How can you use a header file except to include it in your own code. I argue that we should take the position that this type of normal use does not create a derived work any more than reading a novel makes your brain a derived work of that novel. >> This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. >>They >>call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce. >>Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom >>of >>ownership. >No. The authors of the work has with your words - the "ownership" of >his work. >Law says that one facete of that "ownership" is that he may allow or >forbid >derived works. And if he allows someone to produce a derived work >its under >his conditions. The argument is over what is a derived work, what constitutes "using" a header file, and what constitutes agreement to a contract. >But you cant't argument that an author as owner of his work should >use a less >restrictive license than the GPL so you can make a derived work and >distribute it under a more restrictive license than GPL. Why should >he want >to allow that at all (a lot of peoply allow that choosing a BSD- >license - >nice gift)? Nobody can force him to do so. Its not the GPL which >restricts >your freedom, it is copyright law and the author(s) of the work you >want to >made a derived work from. I guess I haven't made myself clear. My argument is not specifically with the GPL except in the sense that it requires people who support it to take anti-freedom positions with respect to fair use, derived works, first sale, and other important issues where actual information freedom is at stake. I'm afraid I'm too tired right now to respond to the rest of your argument. I hope I didn't miss anything importasnt. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 5:35 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-06 16:24 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-06 22:04 ` David Schwartz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Wolfgang Walter @ 2003-01-06 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Sunday 05 January 2003 06:35, David Schwartz wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote: > >On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote: > >>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You already > have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to > grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you agree > to a license that you are not free to negotiate. > A shrink wrap agreement is something completely different. You must differiate between using software and the exploitation right of the copyright-user. Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage. Destroing it is usage. But writing a book which contains part of this book is not using it. Lending it in public libraries is not usage. Making copies and distribute them is not usage. You don't need a license from the author to use the book. A shrink wrap license agreement (or EULA) tries to restrict your rights to USE your bought copy THOUGH you didn't bought it from the person who wants you to do so and AFTER you bought it. With the book-example: you may only read it by night and you are not allowed to speak bad of it. In Germany these shrink wrap license agreement and EULAs are simply invalid. I don't need a license to use the software I bought. Even though I have to click on "I Accept" or "I Agree" - this means nothing as I have to, to install it, and I have to install it, to use it. Of course copyright law is different from country to country but this so in most countries. In Germany microsoft tried to inhibit that peoply sell there copy of windows bought with a new computer (based on there EULA which declared this copy as OEM and only valid together with this computer). They failed of course - there is no license-agreement between the owner of this windows-copy and microsoft. I didn't license the copy, I bought it and own it. And to own software is enough to use it. They can't restrrict unilaterally my right to use it. If I now use the software-update of windows, things get different. Then I conclude a license agreement with them. It is the same with a Red Hat CD. To use the software you don't need a license. They cannot restrcit you in your legal rights as a user. Back to nvidia: if nvidea-drivers are derived work from the kernel I don't now. By itself probably not if they don't use kernel-code. Does a user commit a copyright infringement if he loads them as module? Probably not because it is using the software (the kernel can and does load this module, you don't need to modify it). Does the use infringe the GPL? Hmm, as long as he uses the kernel-binary he bought and this kernel provides the mechanism to load the module he don't need to accept the GPL. If he has to modify the kernel to load the module, then of course he has to accept the GPL because modifing the kernel is not using it. And then the GPL may forbid him to do so. You see what would be the way to effectivly forbid non GPL-modules by a user: a) force the user so he has to modify the kernel OR b) force a module writer to include copyrighted material. Maybe it is enough that the loader-mechanism in user-space and that this tool is not part of the kernel to make it legally a modification of the kernel - but I doubt it. But kernel-developpers may check that the module includes a poetry they wrote and which is part of the kernel-code. I see (you state that below) that you think that using header files in software-projects is not making a derived work from those header files but instead using them. I don't know what a court will decide. But I think this does not hold for header files as it does not hold for runtime libraries etc. But of course you can reverse engineer and write your ones. Reverse engineering is rather easy with open source. > This is the same for use. If Microsoft wants to, they can impose any > terms in the EULA that they want. > No - not in most countries, not in the EU. If you don't conclude an agreement which microsoft which most people don't do. You buy a computer with windows 2000 - you don't have an agreement with microsoft and they can't unilaterally force you to do so by effectifly making the product unusuable. This is even so in most states of USA. > Microsoft doesn't try to argue that every document I write in > Windows 2000 is a derived work. Photoshop doesn't argue that every > image I create in photoshop is a derived work. > Hmm, does OpenOffice that? Does Gimp that? No, of course not. > All you can do with a header file is include it in your own code. > All you can do with photoshop is produce photoshop files. Adobe > doesn't argue that photoshop-created images are derived works. They do. If you use there cliparts-collection you may produce derived works (it depends on the clipart) and the you NEED the agreement of the copyright-owners. If you produce a PDF an you include copies of fonts you NEED the permission of the copyright holders of those fonts (if the fonts are copyrighted). > Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works. I don't know if he does. If the source code of binary-modules do not contain copyrighted material from the kernel they probably not derived works. Loading the module into the kernel by the user may produce a derived work. Putting kernel and modules together in a distribution may produce a derived work. Using kernel header files to produce the binary is very probably making a derived work. But it would be rather hard to prove that - as it is so easy to reverse engineer open source software and write your own header files. > > To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of derived > works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately > prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop. Far A image produced with photoshop is not a derived work. It does not contain photoshop. If you use a nice picture they delivered with photoshop as base then of course you may need a license. > smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and > the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap. Fair use is something different. Fair use is about exploitation right without permission of the copyright holder. I.e. you may cite a book in your book (but you may not print a whole page or so). Making a copy of a book for private use without permission of the copyright holder. (In Germany i.a. you pay for this right: on every copy-device as cd-burners, printers, and on memories like harddiscs, blank CDs, etc. there are fees). For software there is almost no fair use in the EU. I.e. the right for private copies does not exist. On the other habd there are other explicit rights, i.e. to decompilate software to see how it works. > Yes, but this is *use*, which is what the GPL is *not* supposed to > stop. How can you use photoshop except to create images with it? How > can you use a header file except to include it in your own code. I You can read it. You can use that knowledge to write your own. A #include "linux/blabla.h" does not make your file a derived work as long as you do not distribute those files with your file. The one who compiles it using the kernel header files makes a derived work - the binary is a derived work. But thats my opinion. You thinks that it is using them. Greetings, Wolfgang Walter -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts EDV Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München Tel: +49 89 38196-276 Fax: +49 89 38196-144 wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de http://www.studentenwerk.mhn.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-06 16:24 ` Wolfgang Walter @ 2003-01-06 22:04 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-07 0:08 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-07 15:53 ` Georg Nikodym 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-06 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ml-linux-kernel; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:24:21 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote: >On Sunday 05 January 2003 06:35, David Schwartz wrote: >>On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote: >>>On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote: >>>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >>Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You >>already >>have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to >>grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you >>agree >>to a license that you are not free to negotiate. >A shrink wrap agreement is something completely different. You must >differentiate between using software and the exploitation right of >the copyright-user. You can aim this criticism at many other people in this conversation, but not me. I think I'm the only one who does differentiate clearly. >Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage. Really? How do you read a book? You bounce a light off it and make a copy of the book on your retina, right? In other words, you use things by copying them. >Destroing it is usage. But >writing a >book which contains part of this book is not using it. Lending it in >public >libraries is not usage. Making copies and distribute them is not >usage. Yes, copies *of* *that* *book*. But when you make a copy of the book on your retina, your eyes and brain are not a derived work. When you use photoshop, the graphics you create are not a derived work. I submit that the *only* way to use a header file is to include it in a source file, and compile and copy the resultant output. Note that you cannot run a program without copying it. It's physically impossible. >You don't need a license from the author to use the book. Right, because we recognize that a graphic created with photoshop is *not* a derived work of photoshop. A brain that has read a book is not a derived work of that book. Similary, a program whose source code includes a header file should not be considered a derived work of that header file. >A shrink wrap license agreement (or EULA) tries to restrict your >rights to USE >your bought copy THOUGH you didn't bought it from the person who >wants you to >do so and AFTER you bought it. With the book-example: you may only >read it by >night and you are not allowed to speak bad of it. Tell me how you use a computer program without copying it. Please, do that. How do you use a CD without making a copy of the data on it? Use and copying are the same when it comes to information. There is no other way to use information. This is why it's critical to strengthen fair use, first sale, and necessary step type defenses. You can't use a header file without including it in source code. You can't use the resultant object file without copying it. Thus these *must* be fair uses. >In Germany microsoft tried to inhibit that peoply sell there copy of >windows >bought with a new computer (based on there EULA which declared this >copy as >OEM and only valid together with this computer). They failed of >course - >there is no license-agreement between the owner of this windows-copy >and >microsoft. I didn't license the copy, I bought it and own it. And to >own >software is enough to use it. They can't restrrict unilaterally my >right to >use it. How can you use Windows without copying it from your hard drive into memory? Copying is using. Using is copying. >If he has to modify the kernel to load the module, then of course he >has to >accept the GPL because modifing the kernel is not using it. And then >the GPL >may forbid him to do so. Modifying the kernel is not using it? A copy of the kernel is RAM is different from a copy of the kernel on hard drive. This is a transformative modification. You cannot use the linux kernel without modifying it. And guess what? When you run the Linux kernel, are the data structure you thereby create in your memory derived works? >I see (you state that below) that you think that using header files >in >software-projects is not making a derived work from those header >files but >instead using them. Tell me how else you can use them. Please. Go ahead. Tell me any other way to use a header file other than to include it in a source file, compile that source file, and then copy the resulting executable. >>Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works. >I don't know if he does. Then he is arguing to weaken fair use, first sale, and necessary step type principles. These are far more important than the GPL. >If the source code of binary-modules do not contain copyrighted >material from >the kernel they probably not derived works. Loading the module into >the >kernel by the user may produce a derived work. Putting kernel and >modules >together in a distribution may produce a derived work. No, because these are all necessary steps. A necessary step to use is always use. You cannot use the kernel without copying it into memory. You cannot use the kernel without feeding it information and having it produce structure in memory. Stallman is out to destroy fair use. Whether you knows it or admits it or not. >Using kernel header files to produce the binary is very probably >making a >derived work. But it would be rather hard to prove that - as it is >so easy to >reverse engineer open source software and write your own header >files. So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can you do with a header file?! >> To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of >>derived >>works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately >>prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop. >A image produced with photoshop is not a derived work. It does not >contain >photoshop. If you use a nice picture they delivered with photoshop >as base >then of course you may need a license. Exactly. All photoshop can do is produce images. Therefore producing images with photoshop is use, barring some exceptional circumstance. (For example, if you take an image from their clip art.) >>smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and >>the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap. >Fair use is something different. Fair use is about exploitation >right without >permission of the copyright holder. I.e. you may cite a book in your >book >(but you may not print a whole page or so). Making a copy of a book >for >private use without permission of the copyright holder. (In Germany >i.a. you >pay for this right: on every copy-device as cd-burners, printers, >and on >memories like harddiscs, blank CDs, etc. there are fees). Fair use includes any number of ways you can do things you might not normally be able to do. This includes 'necessary step' (this is why you can make a copy of a book on your retina) and 'firs sale' type rights. >For software there is almost no fair use in the EU. I.e. the right >for private >copies does not exist. Then you can't use software at all. Installing from a CD is a private copy. Loading into memory is a private copy. You can't mean what you're saying. Either you're confused or the EU is utterly insane. >The one who compiles it using the kernel header files makes a >derived work - >the binary is a derived work. But thats my opinion. You thinks that >it is >using them. How else can you use a header file other than to include it in a source file that you subsequently compile. This is how header files are intended to be used. This is like making a copy of a book on your retina. It's the only way to use it, so it *must* be use. These are the arguments the 'free software' (as in freedom) crowd should be making, not opposing. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-06 22:04 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-07 0:08 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-07 15:53 ` Georg Nikodym 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-07 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 17:04, David Schwartz wrote: > You can aim this criticism at many other people in this > conversation, but not me. I think I'm the only one who does > differentiate clearly. > > >Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage. > > Really? How do you read a book? You bounce a light off it and make a > copy of the book on your retina, right? In other words, you use > things by copying them. > Yes, copies *of* *that* *book*. But when you make a copy of the book > on your retina, your eyes and brain are not a derived work. When you > use photoshop, the graphics you create are not a derived work. > > I submit that the *only* way to use a header file is to include it > in a source file, and compile and copy the resultant output. Note > that you cannot run a program without copying it. It's physically > impossible. > > Right, because we recognize that a graphic created with photoshop is > *not* a derived work of photoshop. A brain that has read a book is > not a derived work of that book. Similary, a program whose source > code includes a header file should not be considered a derived work > of that header file. Amazing how the topic changes so differently when it origionated as a battle against NVidia. Amazing how sick I am of recieveing this topic in my mailbox. Please end it somehow..there's no need for it anymore. It has been concluded that we don't have to listen to rms if we don't want too and that half of us will use proprietary software if we want to or if their is no good free replacement. Ending it there. -- Steven sbarn03@softhome.net GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-06 22:04 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-07 0:08 ` Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-07 15:53 ` Georg Nikodym 2003-01-07 18:05 ` Mike Galbraith 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Georg Nikodym @ 2003-01-07 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: ml-linux-kernel, linux-kernel, rms [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 523 bytes --] On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:04:15 -0800 David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote: > So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can > you > do with a header file?! Just some ideas: 1. Put 'em on t-shirts. 2. Read aloud to non-technical people as a cure for insonmia. 3. As song lyrics (just like the DeCSS decoder song). 4. Put 'em on wallpaper. 5. Print 'em on toiletpaper. 6. Print, shred and dispose as a was of disinforming dumpster divers. I'm sure that the community can come up with more :-) -g [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-07 15:53 ` Georg Nikodym @ 2003-01-07 18:05 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-01-07 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Georg Nikodym, David Schwartz; +Cc: ml-linux-kernel, linux-kernel, rms At 10:53 AM 1/7/2003 -0500, Georg Nikodym wrote: >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:04:15 -0800 >David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote: > > > So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can > > you > > do with a header file?! > >Just some ideas: > >1. Put 'em on t-shirts. >2. Read aloud to non-technical people as a cure for insonmia. >3. As song lyrics (just like the DeCSS decoder song). >4. Put 'em on wallpaper. >5. Print 'em on toiletpaper. >6. Print, shred and dispose as a was of disinforming dumpster divers. > >I'm sure that the community can come up with more :-) These are great ideas. I'm too busy chuckling to think up more... and :-/ I hope I won't be bored enough after I'm done laughing to try 8) -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 4:39 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-05 5:35 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:06 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Wolfgang Walter <ml-linux-kernel@studentenwerk.mhn.de> writes: >do not keep a copy. As you can do with microsoft windows - if you bought it >(and did not licensed it from microsoft). I.a. it is not necessary to provide Wrong. You buy a license from Microsoft and a media (CD/DVD). Read the end user license agreement (EULA). You're allowed to resell the media but not the license. "Unfortunately" for Microsoft, this distinction is illegal in free countries like Germany [1]. So M$ lost in court and you can legally buy "OEM" versions for a fraction of the "boxed" price and resell your licenses. AFAIK, in the U.S. you cannot resell the license legally once you accepted the EULA (i.e. opened the box). And dealers must not resell unbundled OEM software. Now, who's living in a free country again? Regards Henning [1] The current german governement is actively trying to change this part of the german law. That's what you get for electing morons who might look good on TV. At this point, we're already on U.S. levels. -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:06 ` David Schwartz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps, linux-kernel On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: >Wrong. You buy a license from Microsoft and a media (CD/DVD). Read >the >end user license agreement (EULA). You're allowed to resell the >media >but not the license. "Unfortunately" for Microsoft, this distinction >is illegal in free countries like Germany [1]. So M$ lost in court >and >you can legally buy "OEM" versions for a fraction of the "boxed" >price >and resell your licenses. >AFAIK, in the U.S. you cannot resell the license legally once you >accepted the EULA (i.e. opened the box). And dealers must not resell >unbundled OEM software. >Now, who's living in a free country again? We are. Freedom includes the freedom to set whatever terms you want on what other people do with what is yours. Of course, it also includes the freedom not to buy things that come with restrictive licenses. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-04 3:10 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-05 21:17 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:44 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > [...] They say that open source usually leads to more powerful and > reliable software. [...] Who are "they" and how do "they" put proof to this claim? This is one of the biggest lies of the open source community that I read again and again. Most of the open source software works "about so". Do we have a bullet proof USB stack? WLAN drivers? DHCP code? ACPI? APM (which is about what? eight years old?)? Open Source code most of the times is a collection of code of various quality from people who needed to "scratch an itch" or put a hack in to "support just my configuration". If you find a well designed and completely specified and developed piece of open source software, you're almost sure to find a company or an individual having been paid for developing it and the putting it into open source. Some open source code still gives me nightmares if I only think about the filenames. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:17 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:44 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 22:45 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 21:17, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Most of the open source software works "about so". Do we have a bullet > proof USB stack? WLAN drivers? DHCP code? ACPI? APM (which is about > what? eight years old?)? USB is getting there, but its certainly better than some others WLAN yes - openap is superb stuff DHCP - yes ACPI - very recently become a truely open project so will I hope now improve APM - reliable for years, bios code (the nonfree bit) often very buggy > If you find a well designed and completely specified and developed > piece of open source software, you're almost sure to find a company or > an individual having been paid for developing it and the putting it > into open source. I don't think its that clear. We have some extremely classy code done for fun, or because people had the hardware, and some horrible code people were paid to write. Good code is about good engineers, and good engineers do things for many different reasons and motivations. Alan -- Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 22:44 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 22:45 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 23:03 ` Xavier Bestel 2003-01-05 23:40 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: >WLAN yes - openap is superb stuff I didn't mention an open source access point. I already have a tried and true one in hardware from Lucent. I meant a "driver which doesn't lock up if it meets the WLAN card in an unusual configuration like say, on an PCI/PCMCIA bridge in a desktop computer (yes, Windows 2000 screwed this one up, too. But they managed to fix it in SP1). Or really supports all of the 802.11b power management modes if the card is in managed mode (the WLAN card in my lap top sucks tremendous amounts of current even if I don't do any data transfers. Under windows the card goes to sleep and needs about 5% of the power). And yes, the access point knows how to manage the card. =:-) That was the whole point of buying an (start-1999) $1200 access point. >DHCP - yes Point taken. The ISC code seems to be the standards implementation. >ACPI - very recently become a truely open project so will I hope now >improve "very recently". :-) >APM - reliable for years, bios code (the nonfree bit) often very buggy The APM code on my Laptop still can't figure out how to display the battery level correctly all the time (it flips to "0%" for a few seconds every five to ten minutes), so I can't use the "shut down if below 5%" feature of apmd or my lap top would start shutting down every five to ten minutes. Needless to tell that the Windows 2000 APM has no such problem. BIOS? Really? (BTW: This is an Acer 710TE, one of the best documented Linux laptops on the net). The buttons for controlling the brilliance and contrast of the screen work fine in console mode but not in X11. But the Func+F<n> buttons don't work at all, because Linux considers "Func" the same as "ALT" (it is not). Only if I don't have a virtual console on the F<n> key, it works. It does work in console mode, though. Yes, I know, I can map all this to work correctly with X11 key mappings and I actually do know how to do it. But then again, I have 21+ years of computing experience, starting with self-soldered 8085 boards. My wife e.g. does not. The point is: With Linux I must (I can!) do all of this for myself. For my wife, Windows 2000 does all the grunt work. So she uses Win2k a nd I use Linux (but I have to support the Win2k for her. :-) After all she's not a CS major). >> If you find a well designed and completely specified and developed >> piece of open source software, you're almost sure to find a company or >> an individual having been paid for developing it and the putting it >> into open source. >I don't think its that clear. We have some extremely classy code done >for fun, or because people had the hardware, and some horrible code >people were paid to write. >Good code is about good engineers, and good engineers do things for many >different reasons and motivations. You're definitely right. I tried to polarize a little. :-) Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 22:45 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-05 23:03 ` Xavier Bestel 2003-01-05 23:40 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Xavier Bestel @ 2003-01-05 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Le dim 05/01/2003 à 23:45, Henning P. Schmiedehausen a écrit : > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > > >WLAN yes - openap is superb stuff > > I didn't mention an open source access point. I already have a tried > and true one in hardware from Lucent. I meant a "driver which doesn't > lock up if it meets the WLAN card in an unusual configuration like > say, on an PCI/PCMCIA bridge in a desktop computer (yes, Windows 2000 > screwed this one up, too. But they managed to fix it in SP1). My router has an Orinoco on a PCMCIA/ISA bridge (and I suppose the ISA bus is itself bridged to the PCI bus) running with a stock 2.4.something kernel. Never had a problem. But then, an example isn't a proof. Xav ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 22:45 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 23:03 ` Xavier Bestel @ 2003-01-05 23:40 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-05 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 22:45, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > > >WLAN yes - openap is superb stuff > > I didn't mention an open source access point. I already have a tried I use openap for most of my card driving. Its much more resilient. > >ACPI - very recently become a truely open project so will I hope now > >improve > > "very recently". :-) Serious comment - Until very very recently Intel wouldn't take community changes. Intels focus has also been on correctness, so changes to handle things like broken MS AML 1.0 output haven't gone in - which burns some toshiba users for example. > >APM - reliable for years, bios code (the nonfree bit) often very buggy > > The APM code on my Laptop still can't figure out how to display the > battery level correctly all the time (it flips to "0%" for a few > seconds every five to ten minutes), so I can't use the "shut down if BIOS bug > below 5%" feature of apmd or my lap top would start shutting down > every five to ten minutes. Needless to tell that the Windows 2000 APM > has no such problem. BIOS? Really? (BTW: This is an Acer 710TE, one of yes - BIOS. Most likely btw your Windows setup is using the ACPI interface. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-03 7:51 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig ` (2 more replies) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-03 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is > what really matters. IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free drivers to companies like Nvidia. Mind you that their freedom is more than compensated for by our freedom to decide to not buy their hardware and use hardware which does have free drivers instead. Have some faith in freedom, Richard... Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 2003-01-03 11:33 ` ZHAO Wei 2003-01-03 14:52 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-01-03 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 08:39:55AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free > drivers to companies like Nvidia. > > Mind you that their freedom is more than compensated for by > our freedom to decide to not buy their hardware and use hardware > which does have free drivers instead. > > Have some faith in freedom, Richard... The real issue about freedom is that people should be able to use parts of the GNU systems without having to add a GNU/ prefix to all their naming schemes.. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-01-03 11:33 ` ZHAO Wei 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: ZHAO Wei @ 2003-01-03 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Rik van Riel, Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The real issue about freedom is that people should be able to use > parts of the GNU systems without having to add a GNU/ prefix to all > their naming schemes.. :) You have the freedom. 8) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-01-03 14:52 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-03 15:03 ` Arjan van de Ven 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-03 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote: > IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free drivers > to companies like Nvidia. Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this. that would remove the whole "is it a derived work?" grey area we're talking about. > Have some faith in freedom, Richard... good call. but make it explicit in the kernel's licence. > Rik regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 14:52 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-03 15:03 ` Arjan van de Ven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2003-01-03 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Richard Stallman, linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 483 bytes --] On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:52, Paul Jakma wrote: > Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for > binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The > FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this. unfortionatly that's impossible. First of all *all* copyright holders of the kernel would need to agree to it. Second, it would make it impossible for the kernel to just incorporate other GPL code (like we do all the time, including FSF code) [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 2003-01-03 14:52 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 22:27 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: riel; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel If "have faith in freedom" means to assume it will take care of itself, that is always bad advice. History shows that people who don't defend their freedom tend to lose it. There are many opportunities to lose one's freedom. Businesses even create them, hoping you will take the bait--many people do. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. One way we can defend our freedom is by refusing to buy the hardware that needs non-free drivers. To make this pressure effective, we need to do it consistently; a haphazard boycott by occasional individuals won't be felt. Our community is not organized to do this consistently. Most of the people in our community have never thought about whether using non-free drivers is a good idea; they probably don't even realize there is a difference. It isn't their fault--they hardly have a chance to find out, because few individuals or organizations in our community try to inform them. If anyone is interested in doing substantial work on a project to help the users identify which hardware to use, please write to me. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 22:27 ` Rik van Riel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-01-03 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: mark, billh, paul, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > If "have faith in freedom" means to assume it will take care of > itself, that is always bad advice. Agreed. > One way we can defend our freedom is by refusing to buy the hardware > that needs non-free drivers. To make this pressure effective, Absolutely agreed, this way we might even give nvidia an actual reason to open up their driver. Infinitely better than whining about nvidia doing something they have all right to do... regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 2:57 ` Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-02 6:26 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 8:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-02 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Huey; +Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms On Wed Jan 01, 2003 at 05:37:36PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort > and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and > don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot > commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although > faded). Ahh, but replicated effort is something that open source people do very well at indeed. If nvidia provided non-functional GPL source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out, I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a copy of Quake when they GPLd their code to show support. I similarly bought a copy of Quake II after they GPLd their code. If Nvidia released their code under the GPL, I'd buy one of their cards. As is, I'm sticking with my ATI card... -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen @ 2003-01-02 6:26 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 8:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Erik Andersen, Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel, rms Cc: Bill Huey (Hui) On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 11:12:33PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: > missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a > functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver > roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats That's being too idealistic, IMO. And hearing somebody like me say that, well...uh...;) > the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a > copy of Quake when they GPLd their code to show support. I > similarly bought a copy of Quake II after they GPLd their code. > If Nvidia released their code under the GPL, I'd buy one of their > cards. As is, I'm sticking with my ATI card... I think folks have to identify if the company is doing this intentionally to hold into something irrationally or just because of legal reasons. If it's just legal reasons, then i'll give them slack. bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-02 6:26 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 8:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-02 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> writes: >Ahh, but replicated effort is something that open source people >do very well at indeed. If nvidia provided non-functional GPL >source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out, >I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to >fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the >missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a >functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver >roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats >the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a Ahhh, yes. I know. Replace "nvidia" with "netscape" and "driver" with "browser" and reread your paragraph. I remember having read exactly the same thing when netscape told us that they will "open the source to the navigator". And where were we six months later? Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey @ 2003-01-02 1:57 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-02 1:32 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 20:39 ` David Schwartz 3 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-02 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Jakma; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, Linux Kernel Mailing List, rms On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 00:31, Paul Jakma wrote: > So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia > driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia > driver is technically in material breach of GPL. I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not set by the GPL authors ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 1:57 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-02 1:32 ` Paul Jakma 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Paul Jakma @ 2003-01-02 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Paul Jakma, Rik van Riel, Hell.Surfers, Linux Kernel Mailing List, rms On 2 Jan 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what > constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not > set by the GPL authors indeed, and apparently its not at all a black-and-white area. to that end, i'll point to the following thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05725.html and the paper it links to, "derived software defined" (no idea whether its accurate): http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf and as IANAL, i'll shut up now. regards, -- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-02 1:57 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-02 20:39 ` David Schwartz 3 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-02 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paul; +Cc: Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel >How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? Surely you aren't arguing that someone can copyright int open(const char *, int); Are you? There's the battle and there's the war. The GPL is the battle. If you argue that any code that goes anywhere near anyone else's code is a derived work, you may win the battle by buttressing the GPL, but you will lose the war. The open source community wasn't the first to use 'int open(const char *, int)'. If you want to argue that this is an interface that can be copyrighted, then we're all screwed. Defending fair use and first sale type doctrines and rejecting shrink wrap agreements is far more important than defending the GPL. Using someone else's header file to develop code is *use*, not distribution. That's what header files are for -- that's how you *use* them, by including them. If someone wants to substitute more stringent restrictions, then they can do that by contract. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <fa.ff58bdv.193ou06@ifi.uio.no>]
[parent not found: <fa.glgbuvv.1m1g1he@ifi.uio.no>]
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? [not found] ` <fa.glgbuvv.1m1g1he@ifi.uio.no> @ 2003-01-05 21:46 ` walt 2003-01-07 22:30 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 244+ messages in thread From: walt @ 2003-01-05 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > "Dimitrie O. Paun" writes: > > > > software. For how much money MS has, what have they innovated? > > Face it. Microsoft Software is what made the breakthrough to really > put a powerful machine in every home and allow the 2-5% of the owner > base which are Linux users to get really cheap commodity hardware. I think you are correct in this. The dinosaurs had their day -- we all got our DNA from them -- and now they are gone. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? walt @ 2003-01-07 22:30 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 244+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-01-07 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: walt; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:46:18PM -0800, walt wrote: >... The dinosaurs had their day -- > we all got our DNA from them -- and now they are gone. (completely OT) This is wrong. We didn't got our DNA from the dinosaurs. The split in the evolution between the ancestors of the dinosaurs and our ancestors happened many million years before the great time of the dinosaurs. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 244+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-14 20:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 244+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-12-31 3:57 Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Hell.Surfers 2002-12-31 6:55 ` David Schwartz 2002-12-31 10:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2002-12-31 12:05 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-12-31 12:19 ` John Bradford 2002-12-31 14:22 ` Jochen Friedrich 2002-12-31 14:31 ` John Bradford 2003-01-01 19:28 ` Måns Rullgård 2002-12-31 14:14 ` Andrew Walrond 2002-12-31 12:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-12-31 13:49 ` Mark Rutherford 2002-12-31 15:26 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 15:36 ` Mark Rutherford 2002-12-31 15:44 ` Paul Jakma 2002-12-31 17:05 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-01 19:35 ` Måns Rullgård 2002-12-31 15:11 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2002-12-31 22:36 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-01 16:45 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-02 0:31 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:08 ` David Lang 2003-01-02 1:29 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:21 ` David Lang 2003-01-02 1:38 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 1:37 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 2:57 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 5:58 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 6:14 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 3:32 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 4:06 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 5:00 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 5:15 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 8:31 ` David S. Miller 2003-01-03 5:04 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 5:12 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 12:16 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 12:51 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 13:42 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:46 ` John Alvord 2003-01-03 14:48 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-03 16:13 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-03 16:58 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 14:04 ` Graham Murray 2003-01-05 22:37 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 1:43 ` Ian Molton 2003-01-06 5:26 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 10:44 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-06 16:06 ` Mark Mielke [not found] ` <3E195A4B.B160B1D2@aitel.hist.no> 2003-01-06 11:23 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-07 9:08 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-07 15:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-08 10:06 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-08 12:28 ` Mark Hounschell 2003-01-08 15:33 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Mark Hounschell 2003-01-08 15:46 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-01-08 16:00 ` Mark Hounschell 2003-01-03 19:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 10:31 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-03 14:49 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-03 16:16 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 17:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 17:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 18:03 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:29 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 1:33 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-03 21:19 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:37 ` Disconnect 2003-01-03 23:44 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 21:52 ` jw schultz 2003-01-04 15:41 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-04 13:53 ` Daniel Egger 2003-01-03 16:16 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-03 16:37 ` Marco Monteiro 2003-01-03 18:38 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-03 19:02 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 19:10 ` Ben Greear 2003-01-03 20:21 ` Andrew Walrond 2003-01-04 1:51 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-04 1:24 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-04 5:28 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-04 8:06 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-01-04 8:21 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 6:04 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-01-03 6:29 ` Brad Hards 2003-01-03 7:04 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 18:31 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 1:34 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 18:16 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-03 15:57 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-01-03 19:44 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 20:39 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 22:17 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-04 6:55 ` Bob Taylor 2003-01-04 9:06 ` Vincent Bernat 2003-01-04 21:04 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 18:39 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-04 22:06 ` Matthias Andree 2003-01-04 22:23 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 23:10 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-05 0:00 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-05 0:26 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 1:48 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-05 10:14 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-05 20:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 21:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 22:18 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:58 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-05 21:53 ` Bruce Harada 2003-01-06 21:05 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2003-01-06 22:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-05 18:34 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 19:28 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com 2003-01-05 22:13 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:29 ` RIZEN 2003-01-07 13:39 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 17:31 ` Paulo Andre' 2003-01-06 17:39 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-07 13:40 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-07 14:17 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 15:26 ` yodaiken 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:40 ` David D. Hagood 2003-01-10 0:02 ` yodaiken 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 18:10 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2003-01-08 8:00 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-08 9:04 ` OT Naming. was: " Nils Petter Vaskinn 2003-01-08 11:23 ` Hacksaw 2003-01-08 12:09 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-01-09 9:08 ` Hacksaw 2003-01-12 11:56 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-12 18:27 ` OT Naming. was: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closedsource drivers? Michael D. Shannon 2003-01-08 11:53 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Bill Huey 2003-01-09 23:13 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 23:19 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 0:21 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-10 0:12 ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com 2003-01-10 10:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-10 15:36 ` Linux KERNEL mailinglist! Jan Harkes 2003-01-10 16:10 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Jeff Randall 2003-01-12 11:54 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-12 18:58 ` Jeff Randall 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-14 5:47 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-14 19:37 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-14 11:23 ` Ranjeet Shetye 2003-01-07 15:10 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-03 4:38 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 20:31 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:35 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-01-04 23:45 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-04 23:58 ` Mark Rutherford 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 4:55 ` Philip Wyett 2003-01-03 23:01 ` Gauntlet Set NOW! Andre Hedrick 2003-01-03 23:56 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 7:12 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-04 9:14 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 9:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 10:01 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-04 19:31 ` Matan Ziv-Av 2003-01-04 19:43 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-06 10:56 ` Helge Hafting 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:22 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-05 5:33 ` Milosz Tanski 2003-01-05 5:12 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-05 5:31 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-05 10:47 ` Andrew McGregor 2003-01-05 15:29 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-09 7:28 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-09 7:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-09 7:50 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-01-09 8:08 ` Andrew Morton 2003-01-09 8:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge 2003-01-09 23:06 ` Oliver Xymoron 2003-01-03 7:51 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Mark Mielke 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 21:26 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-03 21:27 ` Dimitrie O. Paun 2003-01-05 21:24 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:08 ` Eric Ortega 2003-01-05 22:34 ` Ian Molton 2003-01-05 23:09 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-04 0:55 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 2:22 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 3:18 ` Matthew D. Pitts 2003-01-04 6:00 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 7:34 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 7:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-04 8:36 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-01-04 8:52 ` Shane R. Stixrud 2003-01-04 9:16 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 21:47 ` Roman Zippel 2003-01-05 11:15 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-01-04 1:19 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 1:32 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-06 3:25 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 2:22 ` venom 2003-01-05 9:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-01-05 21:33 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:10 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-05 22:22 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-04 3:10 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-04 23:44 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-05 0:17 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 4:39 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-05 5:35 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-06 16:24 ` Wolfgang Walter 2003-01-06 22:04 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-07 0:08 ` Steven Barnhart 2003-01-07 15:53 ` Georg Nikodym 2003-01-07 18:05 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:06 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-05 21:17 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 22:44 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-05 22:45 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-05 23:03 ` Xavier Bestel 2003-01-05 23:40 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-03 10:39 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? Rik van Riel 2003-01-03 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 2003-01-03 11:33 ` ZHAO Wei 2003-01-03 14:52 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-03 15:03 ` Arjan van de Ven 2003-01-03 20:30 ` Richard Stallman 2003-01-03 22:27 ` Rik van Riel 2003-01-02 6:12 ` Erik Andersen 2003-01-02 6:26 ` Bill Huey 2003-01-02 8:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-01-02 1:57 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-02 1:32 ` Paul Jakma 2003-01-02 20:39 ` David Schwartz [not found] <fa.ff58bdv.193ou06@ifi.uio.no> [not found] ` <fa.glgbuvv.1m1g1he@ifi.uio.no> 2003-01-05 21:46 ` Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? walt 2003-01-07 22:30 ` Adrian Bunk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).