What is Digg?84 Comments
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46I think it's a clear difference between people like Linus who is interested in technology and people like RMS and his supporters who are more interested in "freedom" and ways to promote it.
If you don't see the difference between having opinions and pushing a political agenda I don't have anything to add to this discussion. - mpineiro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37I'm so happy Linus realizes most of us like being able to use our systems more than we care about a license.
- gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25This guy is so much smarter than the geeks that diefy him.
"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."
Those have been my thoughts exactly for years now. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I'm in 100% agreement with Linus here. The other Linux kernel developers are on a power trip. They think they have enough power to radically change the way the hardware industry develops drivers/firmware. Sorry guys, you don't. You will mortally wound Linux if you pursue this. Modern hardware isn't very unique -- most of the interesting bits are now done in firmware & drivers. Hardware makers won't give up trade secrets to support Linux. In many cases companies license code that they cannot legally open source. What the kernel developers are demanding is unrealistic, short sighted, and dangerous for the future of Linux. Linus should fork the kernel if they really push the issue.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I like this:
-------------
In other words, you guys know my stance. I'll not fight the combined
opinion of other kernel developers, but I sure as hell won't be the first
to merge this, and I sure as hell won't have _my_ tree be the one that
causes this to happen.
So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to
other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the
other direction.
Because I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your
political agendas, please.
Linus - h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I like this better.
"Ok, what kind of ass-hat idiotic thing is this?
irqreturn_t uio_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
exactly what is the point here? No way will I pull this kind of crap. You
just seem to have guaranteed a dead machine if the irq is level-triggered,
since it will keep on happening forever.
Please remove.
YOU CANNOT DO IRQ'S BY LETTING USER SPACE SORT IT OUT!
It's really that easy. The irq handler has to be _entirely_ in kernel
space. No user-space ass-hattery here.
And I don't care one whit if it happens to work on parport with an old
legacy ISA interrupt that is edge-triggered. That's not even the
interesting case. Never will be.
NAK NAK NAK NAK.
Linus"
He seems to be in a bit of a bad mood at that message board. - ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I hope he always resists this.
I love linux. I love the open source model. However, I am not so narrow to think it's the Only way to do things. In the end all I care about is whether my system works. Forcing GPL only modules seems like a great way to break a system that has been working extremely well so far. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29I can't say that I agree. RMS wrote a lot of excellent software like Emacs. he's technical. Both RMS and Linus have influence and they use it as they see fit.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21If Linux does stop allowing binary modules you will see a very large, quick (1-2 years) switch to the Solaris kernel or one of the xBSD ones.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17ha ha. Love it when Linus shows how free software zealots are really a bunch of hypocrites.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@jrideout
Telling people they can't have accelerated openGL will drive away lots and lots of users. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11That was incredibly well-written and thought out. Kudos to Linus on keeping things in perspective and not letting petty politics ruin everything.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Good for Linus!!
- bevans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10huh? why?
You don't like being able to hear what the developers have to say?
I don't get it : - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I didn't say that RMS is not technical, I just said that Linus is interested in technical stuff and RMS (and supporters) in political.. it's about the main orientation, I'm sure you understand that, it's the difference between me who I have (political) opinions and lobbyists or politicians who have a job out of it (even if they do other stuff to)
- taxonimous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I took it to mean that but "people should be able to _use_ our software how they like" in a broader sense.
And I have to say I applaud his post! - RuddO, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I've had it with people somehow devaluing RMS' statements because he is a political person. You should be ***** thankful that RMS has been one of the vigilant guardians of your freedom. Without him, you'd very likely be using some sort of proprietary network and paying for each click.
Oh, and he started the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc). Most of the software around the globe is compiled with it. If you can't recognize how big of a technical feat this is, you're a moron who doesn't deserve his tongue or fingers. - brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I have to agree with atdigg on this. Look at RMS' homepage, try to find some code in there.
Back to the topic: I think this is a really good way of looking at this situation (from his post).
"I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep
me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn
well please. Fair use, man. But it should go the other way too: we should
not try to assert _our_ copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't
derived from ours, or assert _our_ technical measures that keep people
from combining things their way." - jrideout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Linux says that he GPL and copyright in general, only affect DISTRIBUTION. Once you have your GPL software, like the kernel, you can mix it up with anything. This includes binary blobs and other crap, but it still is your right, because you bought (or were given) the code.
If you want to give you frankensteins to someone else, though, then you better comply with the GPL, because then you are making a COPY and become not just a user, but a distributor.
Linux is not talking about something broader. He make the point that this situation is the same as with music. If you buy a cd, you should be able to use it however you want like putting it on an ipod or doing some mashup. But, if you can't go around and sell or give the music you received, unless you have permission, and if you do have permission you must abide by the terms of that permission. That is why most copy-protection schemes are crap, and linux doesn't want to be the RIAA and but in copy-protection drm crap in the kernel, and when it fails (and it will) go around and sue everybody for violations - shinigami2057, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There is no such thing as a kernel "distro." A kernel can be vanilla (from Linus' tree) or changed through patches by a GNU/Linux distribution group, such as Red Hat and Novell. The issue is NOT (!) whether binary drivers should be distributed WITH the vanilla kernel. They're not! The issue is whether or not the module must be of a GPL-compatible license to LOAD it into kernel-space. Once you compile the kernel and use it in your own system, you can do whatever the hell you want with it, including loading closed-source binary driver modules; you just can't distribute the non-GPL modules WITH the kernel code itself. You shouldn't be forced into being unable to load a non-GPL module because that's DRM. Some hardware just doesn't have a free-software driver, and you're stuck with the binary one- but it works, and that's what most people want.
Allowing binary drivers to be loaded as modules into the kernel will not destroy Linux; including them in the kernel source tarballs will, as will disallowing people to load non-OSS drivers. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Here Here Linus... well put.
I agree with him completely, I'm glad and relieved to find that he is seeing through the hypocrisy in all of this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Maybe i will make my own distro, and just include everything that is "against" the rules., and create a torrent and share. I hate installing "insert distro" to only have to go and download flash, and all the other stuff, takes forever. It should come with it, out of the box.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Um, I believe you've got that wrong. If that were true, there'd BE no closed source drivers (as they use the header files for the Linux kernel, which is GPL'ed). If you mean 'use a header file' as 'use a header file to link to a GPL library which is also distributed with my code', thendamned straight; those are the terms of the license: you're using their code, you follow their rules.
Of course, there's a lot of LGPL libs out there that allow for use and modification without source redistribution.
And you know what? You wanna sell a product with an GPL lib in it? You should probably talk to the primary developer of the lib and see if you can talk him into letting you use it under a different license. It's not hard, and it usually only takes a couple e-mails, if the guy's not a zealot. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6BigBrother, The projects you mention (PHP, Python, mysql, etc) all allow for developers to use closed source code in connection with open code. Imagine if Amazon.com had to open their entire code base simply because they use PHP and Apache? That's basically what the kernel developers are purposing here.
I think open source is fantastic for software but it's weak for hardware. I admire any hardware maker who commits to open source drivers -- more power to them but we shouldn't exclude people who have a specific need for closed drivers. Hate the sin, love the sinner as they say... - sigmaman2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Linus makes a convincing point in stressing the difference between copying code and using code. The GPL's success is connected to how it lets everyone use, but not copy GPL work in non-GPL works. If this thing happens, the GPL will be over-stepping it's bounds by directly limiting who can both use and/or copy GPL works. To me, this smacks of a proprietary approach.
- ungamedplayer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, you took that completely wrong. He was saying "dont use mechanism to enforce policy".
You dont care about the licencing
You just want a 'free' as in money system
Too bad your conveniance makes life harder for the people who made your system free to begin with, A real -pound-you-in-the-arse thankyou.
I had more written about why third party modules are bad,( I deal with fixing kernel bugs every other day) but most people wouldnt read it anyway, so I've cut it down to this sentence.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6> To me, this smacks of a proprietary approach.
In case you're wondering why you're being dug down, your post was fine up until this point. - Sargos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Sun gave us Java, not open source development.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3agreed
you should be able to do what you wish with the music
exept sell or give it away
if the friend wants it so badly he should buy it himself
if cloning rays were possible same rules would apply - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know, I don't think RMS would disagree. If I read the story right, Linus is advocating that the Linux kernel can be used and shipped with non-GPL components, and that this is ok as long as the GPL components are still treated like GPL. Well this is precisely in line with the FSF's philosophy that people should be free to use the software as they want and redistribute it as they want. If I'm free to use and redistributed GPLed code as I want to, that means I can bundle any other code with it. Whether that code is GPL or not doesn't enter into it, because we're only talking about the GPLed code. It's nonsense to say that the Linux kernel should be shipped with GPL components, only. Period. RMS would just say that the bundled code itself, regardless of what it's bundled with, should be GPL. The same goes for being able to load in non GPL modules. More so, even, because not being able to, removing that functionality, is PREVENTING people from using it as they want, and this is a violation of one of the core principles of the FSF.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ungamedplayer is right. Linus has been strongly against binary blobs because they are a pain in the ass technically. The only thing he doesn't want is to see DRM style nonsense in the kernel to enforce GPL only code. He'd see that as being no better than the RIAA.
I can't speak for him but from what he has said he is against a person putting binary blobs in drivers as strongly as RMS but for technical reasons rather than political ones. The difference is he backs a more sharing mode where he won't stop people from doing it.
He goes into it in detail in the article in other posts. Personally I respect his position, he seems to back real freedom even when it gets in the way of RMS style 'greater freedom' or even makes life more difficult for himself - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How can it be "freedom" if it is forced upon you? That is not freedom my friend. It is the opposite.
- metalhead3767, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yea, some people care more about the license then they do the software. If every distro came with proprietary drivers and proprietary codecs I would not mind at all. It would just make it more usable.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I simply don't see drivers (or anything else) that link to the kernel as being "derived". If you actually copied code from the kernel (and including headers doesn't count; you're using them as-is, as-offered, in-situ), then that would be derivation. Maybe I'm just naive here.
- psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How does his argument about kernel use not fit in with the GPL?
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I dunno, it sounds very much like Linus is talking about letting the user do as he pleases. Doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down anyone's throat.
Meanwhile, if you mean the GPL... Look, you don't have to do anything to USE a GPL program. You do, on the other hand, have to follow them to REDISTRIBUTE it, just like you would any other copyrighted material.
Got an issue with using an LGPL library? Contact the ***** author and ASK PERMISSION. There might be a fee involved, but I assure you it'd be cheaper than a closed-source library. Not to mention that your clever little developers can mess with the underlying code when the lib misbehaves (as all libs do). - Dominatus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, indeed Linus is a freeloader, never contributed anything to Open Source....
are you ***** serious? - andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I cant see making the kernel GPL modules only happening. Most distros offer non GPL modules. Ubuntu is putting them into its next version as default. Even if they do go ahead and make the kernel GPL modules only then some other people will take their kernel and continue to develop it allowing non GPL modules. Thats one of the good things about open source, if you dont like how the current devs are doing something you can just take what you like and continue.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4RMS: control is freedom
- dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"He's a freeloader, just wants to use other people's code and then tell them how it should be licensed"
What are you talking about??? Are you claiming this is what Linus is saying?
If so, I don't think we read the same posting... - Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do realize that Linus is AGAINST these zealots from putting pro-GPL DRM int he kernal right?
Or are the words too big? - pdiddle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Telling people they can't have accelerated openGL will drive away lots and lots of users."
Hardly, currently Intel support open source drivers for their chipset, and there are two open source drivers in the works for both ati and nvidia cards, with DRI. If anything it should help force these companies to stop providing weaksauce drivers and taking forever to fix bugs the OS community would have done in no time.
Now I full agree there needs to be proprietary software, thats not the argument here, its just drivers for hardware we have bought shouldnt be.
edit: thx digg for not putting my comment where it was meant to be :/ - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You can't see the difference between somewhat who makes an occasional political statement and someone who doggedly pushes a political agenda?
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kernel hackers are always quite on the edge. He is entirely right, user space IRQ handling is madness that leads to machine lock ups.
- ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have been thinking about this and I'm not sure we will have that much to worry about.
With Linus refusing to put this into his tree and telling them to get the distro's to do it, it will never happen. The first distro to enforce GPL modules will see a mass migration away from them because the users just won't be able to get their wobbly windows to work nicely. Or the games to work properly. Or any number of other devices.
No one else would want to impliment it after seeing that. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@h0dg3s:
That was just awesome. A good, experienced lowlevel programmer telling it like it is. Just beautiful. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Emacs is a great piece of software. The only thing it struggles with is that rubbish text editor that's loaded into it as standard. Emacs the lisp framework is great, Emacs the text editor is rubbish.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Can't do it, that would definitely be a derived work. However all the distros could switch to Solaris or BSD very quickly. There's little to choose between them all technically.
- evilgod69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Hardly, currently Intel support open source drivers for their chipset, and there are two open source drivers in the works for both ati and nvidia cards, with DRI. If anything it should help force these companies to stop providing weaksauce drivers and taking forever to fix bugs the OS community would have done in no time."
that's cute. the opensource community doesn't have magical powers, infact... writing opensource drivers for nvidia cards with 3d acceleration is going to be a pain without the specs. hell, even the current opensource drivers without 3d acceleration still have afew bugs. https://bugs.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-nv/+bugs
let alone the ati ones...
https://bugs.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-ati/+bugs
some of those might be duplicates, others might be hardware issues and others might have been fixed in a newer version upstream. but there should be afew still valid bugs in there.
hopefully the group making the new opensource nvidia drivers with 3d acceleration have the energy to be committed to them and make them really high quality. i'd switch to nvidia then. - shinigami2057, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Great, I just lost all of the rest of my comment :(
Anyway, biggbrother:
You cite some of the best examples of great free (as in speech) software, but what you're missing is that not all GREAT software is FREE software. Not all companies are willing to open up their code. This is not a problem, as you have pointed out- anyone can re-implement software in a different, non-infringing way to do the same basic thing. However, it's much more complicated in the _hardware_ world. Not every hardware developer/manufacturer is willing (or capable of, due to legal issues) to open-source their drivers or even the specifications for their hardware. While free software can make a workable system, given time, in MANY cases, does not mean it will work in ALL cases, especially in the realm of closed hardware.
The point is not how feasible it is to make a free-software system, but how feasible it is for EVERYONE. You can't always have your cake and eat it too, necessitating binary drivers until a free equivalent is available. Just because you want your top-of-the-line graphics card to give you the same performance in the free software world doesn't mean it can happen soon (or at all) without the help of your manufacturer. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is