Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[karderio]

Hi :o)

Linus Torvalds wrote : 
> The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the 
> exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell 
> people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the 
> DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly 
> granted by copyright law.
> 
> Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?
> 
> So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not 
> surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked 
> two-facedness about this.

The comparison of what is being suggested for kernel modules to the
actions of the RIAA doesn't seem very fitting. If anything is being
pushed, and anybody is being told what to do, it seems to be pushing for
"openness" and telling corporations to provide important information
about their products. The RIAA seems to be doing the opposite, enforcing
total control over what they release.

Apparently, the GPL itself is a compromise, in order to assure freedom
of information in a non-ideal world. The GPL combats copyright law with
copyright law, it's paradoxical but not hypocritical, and what is being
suggested here for kernel modules seems analog. To call people who are
struggling for freedom with comparatively few resources "two faced" or
"hypocritical" when they must compromise on their principles doesn't
seem all that fair.

If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I'm generally not
at all combative, and would generally argue for leaving people free to
do as they wish. In this case I think the issue, the freedom of
information, is rather an important one, and within reason measures
should be taken to defend it.

Love, Karderio.


"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
without darkening me."

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> 
> If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.

I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software 
community" is for.

We're "open source", and we're not a religion. We don't "twist peoples 
arms". We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them 
participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to 
believe in the GPL or our ideals. In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one 
unified thing to begin with.

We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things 
in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage 
it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most 
particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair 
use".

That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly 
meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with. 

Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it 
out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So 
arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result 
might be worth it. It's still bad.

And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much 
blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is 
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.

It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to 
just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they 
want, that "information freedom" will follow.

It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other 
viewpoints. 

			Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Alan]

> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is 
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.

As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
information is generally free in both senses.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Alan wrote:

> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is 
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
> 
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

I would say that that is a different thing. It "takes effort" to actually 
hide information, so in that sense, it's actually more expensive to try to 
keep it "non-free".

But that has nothing to do with the FSF kind of "freedom", the same way 
"no price" has nothing to do with that freedom.

So "information wants to be free" is more about "free as in beer", I'd 
argue. Trying to suppress information (or spread mis-information) takes 
real effort.

		Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[jdow]

From: "Alan" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>

>> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor 
>> is
>> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

Alan, you might as well declare a rock wants to be free. Information
does not have a brain that could in any way want to be free. It is all
people who want something for nothing who want information to be free.

{^_^}    JOanne 

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[David Nicol]

On 12/15/06, Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

I have often thought that "information wants to be free" is a meaningless
phrase that tends to stop arguments because it is difficult to understand
the words in it.  Raw data does not act without agent. The universe does
tend towards increasing entropy however.  Here's a fun thought experiment:
If you burn a book do you free the words?






-- 
He thought he could organize freedom
how naive and controlling of him
(Bjork, then some)

Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +0000, Alan wrote:

> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free,
> nor is 
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
> 
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
> information is generally free in both senses.

"Remember Frodo, It wants to be free^Wfound"

Sorry, couldn't resist...

-- Steve

Re: Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

[alan]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +0000, Alan wrote:
>
>>> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free,
>> nor is
>>> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>>
>> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
>> Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
>> information is generally free in both senses.
>
> "Remember Frodo, It wants to be free^Wfound"

"Information does not want to be free. It wants to be tied up and 
spanked."

> Sorry, couldn't resist...

Neither could I. ]:>

-- 
Q: Why do programmers confuse Halloween and Christmas?
A: Because OCT 31 == DEC 25

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[karderio]

Re :o)

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > 
> > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software 
> community" is for.
> 
> We're "open source" and we're not a religion.

In the spirit of mutual understanding, I will not say that I do not care
"what you are for", despite your at least very unfriendly reply. You are
a person, I care about you, no matter how hard that can be.

To be as blatantly frank with you as you are with me, I will say I
personally do not care much for open source. I do not see the point of
having source code if it's owner imposes the same arbitrary restrictions
on my use of it as they can on binary, I want more guarantees than that.

>  We don't "twist peoples arms".

I didn't suggest that you twist peoples arms, I was talking about my
imaginary "free software community" ;)

> We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them 
> participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to 
> believe in the GPL or our ideals.

That seems great, this is also one of the things I aspire to. I was
simply suggesting that perhaps a minor compromise to this principle may
be in order, which is of course debatable.

> In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one unified thing to begin with.

I'm sure they're not, I don't really see how that would work to be
honest.

> We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things 
> in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage 
> it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most 
> particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair 
> use".

As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations. In what is the
suggestion for kernel modules fundamentally different from what you
already require of your users ?

> That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly 
> meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with. 

Precisely. A community grants users the right to an open source kernel,
why should certain vendors take away from this freedom by providing
binary only drivers because they don't agree with that community ?

> Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it 
> out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So 
> arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result 
> might be worth it. It's still bad.

That of course was neither suggested nor implied by what I said, at
least not intentionally.

> And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much 
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is 
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
> 
> It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to 
> just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they 
> want, that "information freedom" will follow.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I would even go to as
far as encouraging it in a discussion. If I may however, I think it is
no more effort to disagree respectfully, rather than being sarcastic,
insulting and using words that could be interpreted as downright
aggressive.

Of course "freedom of information" could never hold a candle to peoples
freedom, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. There is a big
difference between "reasonable measures" and "fighting", I don't see
where you got that from.

I think that the basic problem for which we are seeking a solution is
that binary drivers do not permit people to "do what they want", which
by your own definition, shows that they take away from "_peoples_
freedom".

> It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other 
> viewpoints. 

I certainly hope I didn't seem to suggest anything like that, you appear
to be ranting at me because of your disagreements with some third party.
Is "software as a religion" some sort of "joke religion" like Invisible
Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism ?

Love, Karderio.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> 
> As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> certain restrictions and come with certain obligations

Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:

	"Derived works have to be under the same license"

where the rest is just really fluff.

But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
what copyright law defines.

And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
RIAA is your best buddy.

And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_ 
lines" is exactly that total disaster.

We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by 
copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and 
too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible 
situation we could ever be in.

The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the 
sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be. It would be 
a total disaster if you couldn't quote other peoples work, and if you 
couldn't make parodies on them, and if you couldn't legally use the 
knowledge you gained for them.

In other words, copyright MUST NOT be seen as some "we own this, and you 
have no rights AT ALL unless you play along with our rules". Copyright 
absolutely _has_ to allow others to have some rights to play according to 
their rules even without our permission, and even if we don't always agree 
with what they do.

And that is why it would be WRONG to think that we have the absolute right 
to say "that is illegal". It's simply not our place to make that 
judgement. When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the 
content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions 
doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_.

And no, "BECAUSE I'M GOOD" is _not_ an excuse. It's never an excuse to do 
something like that just because you believe you are "in the right". It 
doesn't matter _how_ much you believe in freedom, or anything else - 
everybody _always_ thinks that they are in the right.  The RIAA I'm sure 
is in a moral lather because they are protecting their own stronghold of 
morality against the infidels and barbarians at the gate.

So don't go talking about how we should twist peoples arms and force them 
to be open source of free software. Instead, BE HAPPY that people can take 
advantage of "loopholes" in copyright protections and can legally do 
things that you as the copyright owner might not like. Because those 
"loopholes" are in the end what protects YOU.

			Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Willy Tarreau]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > 
> > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
> 
> Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
> 
> 	"Derived works have to be under the same license"
> 
> where the rest is just really fluff.
> 
> But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
> what copyright law defines.
> 
> And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
> push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
> you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
> RIAA is your best buddy.
> 
> And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_ 
> lines" is exactly that total disaster.
> 
> We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by 
> copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and 
> too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible 
> situation we could ever be in.
> 
> The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the 
> sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.

All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
(eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.

This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
doing legal things or not.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
your teacher hat once a month ? :-)

Regards,
Willy

[1] http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.3/src/LICENSE

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > > 
> > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
> > 
> > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
> > 
> > 	"Derived works have to be under the same license"
> > 
> > where the rest is just really fluff.
> > 
> > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
> > what copyright law defines.
> > 
> > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
> > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
> > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
> > RIAA is your best buddy.
> > 
> > And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_ 
> > lines" is exactly that total disaster.
> > 
> > We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by 
> > copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and 
> > too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible 
> > situation we could ever be in.
> > 
> > The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the 
> > sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.
> 
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
> I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
> explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
> (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
> does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
> hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
> are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
> their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.
> 
> This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
> doing legal things or not.
> 
> Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
> sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
> teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
> your teacher hat once a month ? :-)

I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
them somehow.

So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear
on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers
will never get any support from us?  That would make things crystal clear.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
		- Stephen King

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
> > > 
> > > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
> > > 
> > > 	"Derived works have to be under the same license"
> > > 
> > > where the rest is just really fluff.
> > > 
> > > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
> > > what copyright law defines.
> > > 
> > > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
> > > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
> > > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
> > > RIAA is your best buddy.
> > > 
> > > And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_ 
> > > lines" is exactly that total disaster.
> > > 
> > > We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by 
> > > copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and 
> > > too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible 
> > > situation we could ever be in.
> > > 
> > > The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the 
> > > sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.
> > 
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
> > I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
> > explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
> > (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
> > does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
> > hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
> > are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
> > their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.
> > 
> > This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
> > doing legal things or not.
> > 
> > Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
> > sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
> > teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
> > your teacher hat once a month ? :-)
> 
> I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
> can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
> them somehow.

Agreed this is the most important problem.

> So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear
> on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers
> will never get any support from us?  That would make things crystal clear.

This would constitute a good starting point. But what I was trying
to address is the other side of the problem : all the politicial
discussions on LKML which make the developers waste their time
always trying to explain the same things to extremist people (you
see, "we must forbid binary drivers to protect users freedom" and
"I'm free to run whatever I want"). I don't care at all about what
those people think and I don't like the way they want to impose
their vision to others. But above all, but I'm fed up with those
recurrent subjects on development and bug reporting mailing list,
they waste everyone's time.

> Greetings,
> Rafael

Regards,
Willy

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
> > > > 
> > > > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
> > > > 
> > > > 	"Derived works have to be under the same license"
> > > > 
> > > > where the rest is just really fluff.
> > > > 
> > > > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
> > > > what copyright law defines.
> > > > 
> > > > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
> > > > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
> > > > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
> > > > RIAA is your best buddy.
> > > > 
> > > > And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_ 
> > > > lines" is exactly that total disaster.
> > > > 
> > > > We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by 
> > > > copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and 
> > > > too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible 
> > > > situation we could ever be in.
> > > > 
> > > > The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the 
> > > > sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.
> > > 
> > > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > > between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
> > > I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
> > > explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
> > > (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
> > > does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
> > > hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
> > > are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
> > > their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.
> > > 
> > > This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
> > > doing legal things or not.
> > > 
> > > Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
> > > sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
> > > teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
> > > your teacher hat once a month ? :-)
> > 
> > I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
> > can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
> > them somehow.
> 
> Agreed this is the most important problem.
> 
> > So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear
> > on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers
> > will never get any support from us?  That would make things crystal clear.
> 
> This would constitute a good starting point. But what I was trying
> to address is the other side of the problem : all the politicial
> discussions on LKML which make the developers waste their time
> always trying to explain the same things to extremist people (you
> see, "we must forbid binary drivers to protect users freedom" and
> "I'm free to run whatever I want"). I don't care at all about what
> those people think and I don't like the way they want to impose
> their vision to others. But above all, but I'm fed up with those
> recurrent subjects on development and bug reporting mailing list,
> they waste everyone's time.

Agreed.

Greetings,
Rafael

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
>I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
> support them somehow.
>
>So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will
> appear on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of
> binary-only drivers will never get any support from us?  That would
> make things crystal clear.
>
>Greetings,
>Rafael

I disagree with this, to the extent that I perceive this business of no 
support for a 'tainted' kernel to be almost in the same category as 
saying that if we configure and build our own kernels, then we are alone 
and you don't want to hear about it.

Yes, there is a rather large difference in actual fact, but if I come to 
the list with a firewire or usb problem, we should be capable of 
divorcing the fact that I may also be using an ati or nvidia supplied 
driver from the firewire or usb problem at hand.

I am not in fact using the ati driver with my 9200SE, as the in-kernel as 
its plenty good enough for that I do, but that's the point.  To 
automaticly deny supplying what might be helpfull suggestions just 
because the user has a 'tainted' kernel strikes me as being pretty darned 
hypocritical, particularly when the user states he has reverted but this 
instant problem persists.

Yes, there have been bad drivers, but they are generally rather quickly 
known about, and replaced with newer versions in short order if problems 
of a fixed pattern are known to occur with version xyz of the nvidia 
stuff.

small rant:
Ati's track record is not so stellar in terms of timely fixes, but from 
comments I see, their support may be getting better, but IMO the main 
support we see is from their PR people announcing yet another linux 
driver project we rarely see the output of while the card itself is still 
in production.  I've been burnt there, twice now, once I even bought 
linux drivers from a 3rd party & took a bath on that too, wanting to use 
such and such a card, waiting till we had a driver for that card, then 
going after the card only to find it doesn't work, they've replaced the 
card with a new, completely incompatible version without changing 
anything on the box, and only the windows cd and the actual card in the 
box.  That's just plain criminal, that box should be carrying at least a 
new part number so the buyer can make an intelligent choice.

/rant

But those are *my* problems and I'm a big boy now.  I just want to point 
out that this 'tainted' business, while 90% politically driven, is a huge 
turnoff for the Joe Sixpacks looking to get the M$ shaft out of an 
orifice normally used for other things.

I also have witnessed more of this argument, which seems to occur at 
monthly intervals, than I care to.  This is not productive use of anyones 
time.  And I've now contributed to the noise so I'll SU...

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [...]
> >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
> > support them somehow.
> >
> >So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will
> > appear on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of
> > binary-only drivers will never get any support from us?  That would
> > make things crystal clear.
> 
> I disagree with this, to the extent that I perceive this business of no 
> support for a 'tainted' kernel to be almost in the same category as 
> saying that if we configure and build our own kernels, then we are alone 
> and you don't want to hear about it.
> 
> Yes, there is a rather large difference in actual fact, but if I come to 

There's indeed a big difference. That's why people ask for your .config and for
the changes you made to your kernel (especially in cases like `Hi, the kernel
crashes with my newly written driver').

> the list with a firewire or usb problem, we should be capable of 
> divorcing the fact that I may also be using an ati or nvidia supplied 
> driver from the firewire or usb problem at hand.

You can divorce it by not loading the binary-only driver(s) and reproducing the
problem.

> I am not in fact using the ati driver with my 9200SE, as the in-kernel as 
> its plenty good enough for that I do, but that's the point.  To 
> automaticly deny supplying what might be helpfull suggestions just 
> because the user has a 'tainted' kernel strikes me as being pretty darned 
> hypocritical, particularly when the user states he has reverted but this 
> instant problem persists.

Then the kernel is no longer tainted, right?

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
> can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
> them somehow.

Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty 
clear.

I think people do by-and-large know that if they load a binary module, 
they simply can't get supported by the kernel developers. 

We make that fairly clear at module loadign time, and I think it's also 
something that people who have read linux-kernel or seen other peoples 
bug-reports are reasonably aware of.

I realize that a lot of people never read the kernel mailing list, but 
they probably don't look at www.kernel.org either - they got their kernel 
from their distribution. The only way they realize is probably by looking 
at where they got whatever binary modules they use.

That said - it should be noted that a lot of the time when you use a 
binary module and have an oops, the oops doesn't necessarily have anything 
to do with your binary module. If I recognize the oops from other reports, 
I certainly won't say "I'm not going to help you, because you used a 
binary module". If I can tell where the problem is, the binary module is a 
non-issue.

It's only when we try to debug things that we say "You've got a binary 
module, you need to reproduce this problem _without_ it, because otherwise 
we can't bother to waste our time on trying to debug something that may be 
due to somebody else".

			Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Theodore Tso]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent. 

That is NOT TRUE.  If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
a TV with a screen larger than 29" and with two chairs is a theatrical
performance, and so anyone with a large screen TV must ask permission
from the MPAA first and pay $$$ before they crack open a DVD, would
you think that they should be allowed to claim that watching a DVD
isn't fair use unless you obey their rules?

I thought not.

						- Ted

P.S.  For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent. 
> 
> That is NOT TRUE.  If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
> a TV with a screen larger than 29" and with two chairs is a theatrical
> performance, and so anyone with a large screen TV must ask permission
> from the MPAA first and pay $$$ before they crack open a DVD, would
> you think that they should be allowed to claim that watching a DVD
> isn't fair use unless you obey their rules?
> 
> I thought not.

I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
the same time. However, I may consider it an abuse when a sports club
projects the film for 30 persons.

[OT]
> 
> 						- Ted
> 
> P.S.  For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
> MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.

I feel sorry for you, really. Sadly, stupid american laws generally
contaminate Europe 10 years later, so we will eventually feel sad too.

[/OT]

Regards,
Willy

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Theodore Tso]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
> the same time. 

"You can consider it"?  But you're not the author.  This is the
hypocrisy that Linus was talking about.  At the same time that you're
trying to dictate to other other people can use their copy of the
Linux kernel, when it comes to others people's copyrighted work, you
feel to dictate what is and isn't "fair use".

That's the big thing about dynamic linking.  The GPL has always said
it is about distribution, not about use.  The dynamic linking of a
kernel module happens in the privacy of someone's home.  When we try
to dictate what people are doing in the privacy in their home, we're
no better than the MPAA or the RIAA.  

As far as whether or not someone is allowed to distribute a binary
module that can be linked into the Linux kernel, that's a question of
whether the binary module is a derived work or not.  And that's not up
to us, that's up to the local laws.  But before you decide that you
want the most extreme form of anything that wanders close to one
person's code or header files is a derived work, and to start going to
work lobbying your local legislature, recall that there have been
those who have claimed that Linux is a derived work of Unix because we
used things like #define's for errno codes and structure definitions
of ELF binaries.  You really sure you want to go there?

						- Ted

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> > to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> > I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
> > the same time. 
> 
> "You can consider it"?  But you're not the author.  This is the
> hypocrisy that Linus was talking about.  At the same time that you're
> trying to dictate to other other people can use their copy of the
> Linux kernel, when it comes to others people's copyrighted work, you
> feel to dictate what is and isn't "fair use".

No, I don't want to dictate, it's the opposite, I say what _I_ consider
fair use. Other people will consider it other ways. It's exactly the
gray area Linus was talking about. As long as all parties agree on one
given fair use, there's no problem. Discussion and sometimes litigation
is needed when some parties disagree.

> That's the big thing about dynamic linking.  The GPL has always said
> it is about distribution, not about use.  The dynamic linking of a
> kernel module happens in the privacy of someone's home.  When we try
> to dictate what people are doing in the privacy in their home, we're
> no better than the MPAA or the RIAA.  

100% agreed with you on this !

> As far as whether or not someone is allowed to distribute a binary
> module that can be linked into the Linux kernel, that's a question of
> whether the binary module is a derived work or not.  And that's not up
> to us, that's up to the local laws.  But before you decide that you
> want the most extreme form of anything that wanders close to one
> person's code or header files is a derived work, and to start going to
> work lobbying your local legislature, recall that there have been
> those who have claimed that Linux is a derived work of Unix because we
> used things like #define's for errno codes and structure definitions
> of ELF binaries.  You really sure you want to go there?

Ted, I think you get me wrong. I don't want to dictate anyone what's
derived work and what is not. Instead, it's the opposite. I just want
to indicate them what's explicitly permitted by the author and copyright
owner (at least by me as the author/copyright owner when I can) so that
people can decide by themselves what level of risk they take by doing
whatever they want. What I consider the most important is to encourage
fair use even in areas I never anticipated, and when possible, try to
protect fair users from the GPL zealots who want to bite whenever one
gives them an opportunity to abuse the gray area to feel stronger.

I have opened even more my software and tried to clarify the reasons
why I chose the dual license exactly for this reason.

What I was suggesting is to add a clarification with the kernel to
avoid those overly long threads on LKML such as this one. It would
basically be structured like this :

"Use in the following order" :
  1) fully respect the license and you're OK.
  2) play in the gray area if you need and if you consider it fair use,
     but seek legal advice from a lawyer (and not LKML) before !
  3) explicitly violate the license, and prepare to get sued sooner or later.
  For GPL zealots : please do not report what _you_ consider abuse to LKML,
  contact the abuser, then a lawyer or specialized sites for this.

But Linus is right, he's not the only copyright owner, and that makes it
harder to touch anything related to license and use.

> 						- Ted

Willy

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> P.S.  For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
> MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.
>   
(Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as "news".

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html

Other headlines:

    MPAA to Thwart Pirates by Making All Movies Suck
    Sony Unveils New Self-Destructive DVD Player


    J)

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent.

No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent 
and the users intent. 

In other words, "fair use" kicks in EXACTLY when an author says "you can't 
copy this except when you [payme, stand on your head for two hours, give 
your modifications back]", and the user _disagrees_.

Users still have rights under copyright law even when the author tries to 
deny them those rights.

Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use. People 
who actually do "original work" tend to all realize that everybody really 
feeds off of each others works, and that we're all inspired by authors etc 
that went before us. So I doubt a lot of real authors, musicians or 
computer programmers will actually disagree with the notion of fair use, 
but it's important to realize that fair use is exactly for when the users 
and the authors rights clash, and the user DOES have rights. Even rights 
that weren't explicitly given to them by the author.

> For this exact reason, I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software 
> (haproxy) stating that I explicitly permit linking with binary code if 
> the user has no other choice (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), 
> provided that "derived work" does not steal any GPL code (include files 
> are under LGPL). On the other hand, all "common protocols" are 
> developped under GPL so that normal users are the winners, and everyone 
> is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for their new code to benefit from 
> everyone else's eyes on the code.
> 
> This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
> doing legal things or not.

I think that's fine, and I think it may make some of your users happier, 
and breathe more easily. I don't disagree with that kind of clarification.

But:

> Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
> sources ?

I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized 
that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and 
that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work".

I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA distasteful, and in that I 
probably have a lot of things in common with a lot of people on this list. 
But by _exactly_ the same token, I also find the FSF's position and a lot 
of GPL zealots' position on this matter very distasteful.

Because "fair use" is NOT somethng that should be specified in the 
license. It's very much something that people have DESPITE any license 
claiming otherwise.

And I'd rather teach people that fundamental fact, than try to confuse the 
issue EVEN MORE by saying that my copyright only extends to derived works 
in the license text. That will just make people think that if the license 
does NOT say that, they don't have fair use. AND THAT IS WRONG.

			Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > 
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent.
> 
> No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent 
> and the users intent. 
> 
> In other words, "fair use" kicks in EXACTLY when an author says "you can't 
> copy this except when you [payme, stand on your head for two hours, give 
> your modifications back]", and the user _disagrees_.
> 
> Users still have rights under copyright law even when the author tries to 
> deny them those rights.

I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
because I think that you (as the "author") are in the type of authors
you describe below :

> Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use. People 
> who actually do "original work" tend to all realize that everybody really 
> feeds off of each others works, and that we're all inspired by authors etc 
> that went before us. So I doubt a lot of real authors, musicians or 
> computer programmers will actually disagree with the notion of fair use, 
> but it's important to realize that fair use is exactly for when the users 
> and the authors rights clash, and the user DOES have rights. Even rights 
> that weren't explicitly given to them by the author.

And it is in this situation that I see the compatibility between the user's
and the author's intent : if the user doubts about his fair use and asks the
author, generally the author agrees to extend his fair use perimeter.

(...)

> I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized 
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and 
> that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work".
> 
> I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA distasteful, and in that I 
> probably have a lot of things in common with a lot of people on this list. 
> But by _exactly_ the same token, I also find the FSF's position and a lot 
> of GPL zealots' position on this matter very distasteful.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^

You see my point ? The users generally understand "fair use" easier than
the GPL zealots which pollute the list or strip down kernel drivers to
save users' freedom. And it is to protect fair users from those people
that I explicited my intent along with the license.

> Because "fair use" is NOT somethng that should be specified in the 
> license. It's very much something that people have DESPITE any license 
> claiming otherwise.
> 
> And I'd rather teach people that fundamental fact, than try to confuse the 
> issue EVEN MORE by saying that my copyright only extends to derived works 
> in the license text. That will just make people think that if the license 
> does NOT say that, they don't have fair use. AND THAT IS WRONG.

That's a valid point. What is really needed is to tell them that if they
doubt, they just have to ask the author and not be advised by any GPL zealot.

> 			Linus

Regards,
Willy

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
> because I think that you (as the "author") are in the type of authors
> you describe below :
> 
> > Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use.

Sure. Sadly, in this day and age, "copyright owner" and "author" only bear 
a very passing resemblance to each other.

In a lot of areas, the AUTHOR may be a very reasonable person, and realize 
that fair use is a good thing, and perhaps even realize that in some 
places even unfair use can be a good thing (do you really think you should 
pay $20 for a DVD if you make $3 a month in a sweatshop in china? Maybe 
piracy sometimes is simply better..)

But the author may also have his own reasons for wanting to _deny_ fair 
use. Maybe he's just a royal a-hole, and wants to milk his work for 
whatever it's worth. But maybe he's a person with an agenda, and wants to 
ignore fair use because he wants to "improve the world for everybody", 
never mind that he tries to deny people a fundamental right in the 
process. I call those people a-holes too (in all fairness, they return the 
favor, so we're all even ;)

But even more commonly, the author simply doesn't control the copyright at 
all any more. In many areas (and software is one - including even large 
swaths of free software), the copyrights of a work is not really 
controlled by the author of the work, but by companies or foundations that 
have no reason to really try to educate people about "fair use".

So I actually think that the authors that actually UNDERSTAND fair use, 
and realize that people can use portions of their work without permission, 
AND that actually control their work is a very very very small subset of 
authors in general.

This has nothing to do with software per se, btw. Pick up one of the 
Calvin & Hobbes books by Bill Watterson - I think it may have been the "10 
year anniversary" one - where he talks about the disagreements he had with 
the people who actually controlled the copyrights (and I think also some 
of the people who used his artwork without any permission - the line 
between "fair use" and "illegal" really is a murky one, and while we 
should celebrate that murkiness, it's also why people disagree).

> > And I'd rather teach people that fundamental fact, than try to confuse the 
> > issue EVEN MORE by saying that my copyright only extends to derived works 
> > in the license text. That will just make people think that if the license 
> > does NOT say that, they don't have fair use. AND THAT IS WRONG.
> 
> That's a valid point. What is really needed is to tell them that if they
> doubt, they just have to ask the author and not be advised by any GPL zealot.

Well, in open source, there often isn't any one "the author". So you can't 
do that. And when there is, as mentioned, he may not actually even have 
the legal right any more to give you any license advice. And even when he 
does hold the copyrights, he may change his mind later.

So in the end, the thing you can and should depend on is: the license text 
itself (and happily, the GPLv2 very clearly talks about the real line 
being "derived work" - it may be a murky line, and they seem to want to 
change that to something harder in the GPLv3, but it's a good line), a 
separate signed contract, or simply a legal opinion, preferably by a judge 
in a court of law. 

Of course, it very seldom gets to that kind of issue. People tend to just 
walk very gently around it all.

If you want to be safe, you NEVER do any binary modules. The only 
_obviously_ safe thing is to always do only what the license very 
explicitly allows you to, and in the case of the GPLv2, that's to release 
all modifications under the same GPLv2.

Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge 
decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't 
actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ 
possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 
with their modules.

Judges have done stranger things. And it's not my place to say what the 
limit of "derived work" actually is. It all probably depends on a lot of 
circumstances, and there simply isn't an easy answer.

			Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Dave Jones]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

 > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge 
 > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't 
 > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ 
 > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 
 > with their modules.

ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like..

+ifdef STANDALONE
 MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
+endif

This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it.
It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko,
but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds
incredibly dubious.

Now, AGPGART has a murky past wrt licenses.  It initally was imported
into the tree with the license "GPL plus additional rights".
Nowhere was it actually documented what those rights were, but I'm
fairly certain it wasn't to enable nonsense like the above.
As it came from the XFree86 folks, it's more likely they really meant
"Dual GPL/MIT" or similar.

When I took over, any new code I wrote I explicitly set out to mark as GPL
code, as my modifications weren't being contributed back to X, they were
going back to the Linux kernel.  ATI took those AGPv3 modifications from
a 2.5 kernel, backported them to their 2.4 driver, and when time came
to do a 2.6 driver, instead of doing the sensible thing and dropping
them in favour of using the kernel AGP driver, they chose to forward
port their unholy abomination to 2.6.
It misses so many fixes (and introduces a number of other problems)
that its just unfunny.

The thing that really ticks me off though is the free support ATI seem
to think they're entitled to.  I've had end-users emailing me
"I asked ATI about this crash I've been seeing with fglrx, and they
 asked me to mail you".

I invest my time into improving free drivers.  When companies start
expecting me to debug their part binary garbage mixed with license
violations, frankly, I think they're taking the piss.

A year and a half ago, I met an ATI engineer at OLS, who told me they
were going to 'resolve this'.  I'm still waiting.
I live in hope that the AMD buyout will breathe some sanity into ATI.
Then again, I've only a limited supply of optimism.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:33:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge 
>  > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't 
>  > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ 
>  > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 
>  > with their modules.
> 
> ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like..
> 
> +ifdef STANDALONE
>  MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
> +endif
> 
> This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it.
> It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko,
> but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds
> incredibly dubious.
>...

Current versions contain
  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
...

> The thing that really ticks me off though is the free support ATI seem
> to think they're entitled to.  I've had end-users emailing me
> "I asked ATI about this crash I've been seeing with fglrx, and they
>  asked me to mail you".
> 
> I invest my time into improving free drivers.  When companies start
> expecting me to debug their part binary garbage mixed with license
> violations, frankly, I think they're taking the piss.
> 
> A year and a half ago, I met an ATI engineer at OLS, who told me they
> were going to 'resolve this'.  I'm still waiting.
> I live in hope that the AMD buyout will breathe some sanity into ATI.
> Then again, I've only a limited supply of optimism.

But who's actually taking legal actions?

Perhaps pending legal changes that will turn copyright violations into 
crimes might help to take legal actions without the legal risks of
civil trials.

Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a 
company that is often located in a different country, and the only 
possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people 
who are infriding the copyright by e.g. selling Linux distributions 
containing fglrx at Ebay or operating Debian ftp mirrors. That sounds 
highly unfair, but unfortunately it also seems to be the only effective 
way for someone without a big wallet to effectively act against such 
licence violations...

> 		Dave

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:56:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a 
> company that is often located in a different country, and the only 
> possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people 
> who are infriding the copyright by e.g. selling Linux distributions 
> containing fglrx at Ebay or operating Debian ftp mirrors. That sounds 
> highly unfair, but unfortunately it also seems to be the only effective 
> way for someone without a big wallet to effectively act against such 
> licence violations...

To avoid any misunderstandings:

I do not want to threaten anyone, and I do not plan to do such legal 
actions myself.

My point is simply that whoever considers this grey area a good thing 
and wants to leave clarifications to the lawyers should be aware that 
e.g. in the fglrx and nvidia cases it's quite possible that the target 
of legal actions might not be AMD but e.g. the Technical University of 
Dresden that is distributing the offending code in Germany [1].

cu
Adrian

[1] by operating ftp.de.debian.org

-- 

       "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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Gerhard Mack]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge 
>  > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't 
>  > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ 
>  > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 
>  > with their modules.
> 
> ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like..
> 
> +ifdef STANDALONE
>  MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
> +endif
> 
> This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it.
> It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko,
> but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds
> incredibly dubious.
> 
> Now, AGPGART has a murky past wrt licenses.  It initally was imported
> into the tree with the license "GPL plus additional rights".
> Nowhere was it actually documented what those rights were, but I'm
> fairly certain it wasn't to enable nonsense like the above.
> As it came from the XFree86 folks, it's more likely they really meant
> "Dual GPL/MIT" or similar.
> 
> When I took over, any new code I wrote I explicitly set out to mark as GPL
> code, as my modifications weren't being contributed back to X, they were
> going back to the Linux kernel.  ATI took those AGPv3 modifications from
> a 2.5 kernel, backported them to their 2.4 driver, and when time came
> to do a 2.6 driver, instead of doing the sensible thing and dropping
> them in favour of using the kernel AGP driver, they chose to forward
> port their unholy abomination to 2.6.
> It misses so many fixes (and introduces a number of other problems)
> that its just unfunny.
> 
> The thing that really ticks me off though is the free support ATI seem
> to think they're entitled to.  I've had end-users emailing me
> "I asked ATI about this crash I've been seeing with fglrx, and they
>  asked me to mail you".
> 
> I invest my time into improving free drivers.  When companies start
> expecting me to debug their part binary garbage mixed with license
> violations, frankly, I think they're taking the piss.
> 
> A year and a half ago, I met an ATI engineer at OLS, who told me they
> were going to 'resolve this'.  I'm still waiting.
> I live in hope that the AMD buyout will breathe some sanity into ATI.
> Then again, I've only a limited supply of optimism.

You would think ATI's steaming pile of crap would be a good reason for 
them to give up on the whole binary module thing and just release specs so 
someone else can write a decent driver.

I made the mistake of purchasing an ATI X1600.  No open kernel driver.. no 
open X driver.  The ATI drivers don't even complile on amd64 on any 
recent kernel and their X drivers are prone to random screen corruption 
that requires nothing less than a full reboot to clear.

IMO let those morons keep writing themselves into a corner with this crud 
and then perhapse they will see for themselves that binary modules are a 
horribly bad idea instead of having someone else to blame when this whole 
thing finally fails.

	Gerhard


--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

>  > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge 
>  > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't 
>  > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ 
>  > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 
>  > with their modules.
> 
> ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like..
> 
> +ifdef STANDALONE
>  MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
> +endif
> 
> This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it.
> It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko,
> but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds
> incredibly dubious.
> 
> Now, AGPGART has a murky past wrt licenses.  It initally was imported
> into the tree with the license "GPL plus additional rights".
> Nowhere was it actually documented what those rights were, but I'm
> fairly certain it wasn't to enable nonsense like the above.
> As it came from the XFree86 folks, it's more likely they really meant
> "Dual GPL/MIT" or similar.
> 
> When I took over, any new code I wrote I explicitly set out to mark as GPL
> code, as my modifications weren't being contributed back to X, they were
> going back to the Linux kernel.  ATI took those AGPv3 modifications from
> a 2.5 kernel, backported them to their 2.4 driver, and when time came

Do they actually distribute that AGPv3 + binary blob? In such case,
you should simply ask them for the binary blob sources, and take them
to the court if they refuse. RedHat should be big enough, and ATI
certainly makes enough money...

They'll probably resolve the problem fast if they feel legal actions
are pending.
							Pavel

-- 
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[karderio]

Hi :o)

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's 
> what copyright law defines.

Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work.

> And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you 
> push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work", 
> you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the 
> RIAA is your best buddy.

I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
made. 

I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
enforce distribution of source code etc. and this by law. The proposed
changes do not impose anything, they just make things technically a
little more complicated for some, and they can be trivially circumvented
if one desires. Maybe not a good idea, but still no excuse for the sort
of atrocious bigotry some people are exhibiting here.

I do not mean to say this is a good thing, some of the arguments
advanced here make me much less enthusiastic as at the beginning. As I
said in my first post, and seemed to be promptly ignored, this can only
by any use at all if it persuades vendors to provide the essential
information about their products without hurting users too much, or
further alienating vendors. All this is of course highly debatable, and
needs discussing properly, if people are able to communicate in a civil
manner that is.

Before any fanatic ranting saying that people inducing slight
complications are freedom hating Nazis who should be burned at the
stake, please contrast this trivial complication with the extremely
difficult work that must be done by someone wanting to write a driver
when a vendor doesn't provide adequate documentation.

It might be noted that in some countries it is quite illegal not to
provide documentation for a product, just as it is illegal to limit a
product to only work with a specific vendors merchandise when said
product is in essence generic. This is the case in France, where these
laws are simply ignored by corporations. A large French NFP sued HP last
week about them not allowing their PCs to be sold without Windows, so we
may finally start to get these laws applied. I have written the NFP to
suggest that if the case does not extend to missing hardware
documentation, maybe another case would be in order. In the past the
people at this NFP have been very civil and cooperative with me.

> And that is why it would be WRONG to think that we have the absolute right 
> to say "that is illegal". It's simply not our place to make that 
> judgement. When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the 
> content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions 
> doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_.

I have seen nobody with the ponce to judge people or try to have control
over them when arguing for these mods. I think all that has been said
has been people trying to interpret the law, it's quite possible they
got it wrong. Not that I can blame them, law is a not simple, and I can
see people on both "sides" of the argument not getting things quite
right here.

I would note however that I personally find it distasteful to call
people "wrong" rather than respectfully disagreeing with them.

> So don't go talking about how we should twist peoples arms and force them 
> to be open source of free software. Instead, BE HAPPY that people can take 
> advantage of "loopholes" in copyright protections and can legally do 
> things that you as the copyright owner might not like. Because those 
> "loopholes" are in the end what protects YOU.

I admit I should not have used the phrase "twist arm", I meant it in an
entirely jocular sense, it is a phrase I never employ usually. Of course
it is a mistake I regret. The word "persuade" would have been a much
better choice.

As I hope I clearly explained above, it wasn't suggested to "force"
anybody to do anything.

Although I don't appreciate insult or aggressively, I choose to ignore
it in order to try and advance a reasonable discussion. I will not stand
here and let you tell me what to and not to do however. It also makes
you seem a bit hypocritical in a discussion where you are claiming to be
arguing for "freedom".

Love, Karderio.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Theodore Tso]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote:
> I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
> restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
> the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
> enforce distribution of source code etc. and this by law. The proposed
> changes do not impose anything, they just make things technically a
> little more complicated for some, and they can be trivially circumvented
> if one desires. 

.... except that the people who proposed these changes have already
suggested that these circumventions would be violations of the United
States' Digital Milllenium Copyright Act, which has rather draconoian
penalties for these "trivial circumventions".  Which is precisely why
Linus has said that if we go down this path, we are basically using
the same tactics as the RIAA and MPAA.  And why this kind of arm
twisting as "pursuasion" would be a very, VERY bad idea.  

						- Ted

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> 
> I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
> touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
> GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
> made. 

.. and then what does that mean? It means that we try to say that people 
cannot do what they LEGALLY can do? 

In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer 
neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able 
to do something) _nor_ a legal issue. 

So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually do?

It's "big prother, FSF style". And I say NO THANK YOU.

		Linus

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[Scott Preece]

On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer
> neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able
> to do something) _nor_ a legal issue.
>
> So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually do?
>
> It's "big prother, FSF style". And I say NO THANK YOU.
>
>                 Linus
---

Well, you can't really say it's "FSF-style", since the GPLv3 language
explicitly gives permission to circumvent any protection measures
implemented by a GPLv3 program.  Even the FSF doesn't support using
the DMCA to support GPL restrictions.

scott