2006/9/5, Robert Schiele <rschiele@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:25:46AM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
> >
> >So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major
> >advantage, namely being open-source?
>
>
> Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software
> available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ...
At least for the first three distributions there is no closed source software
included in the free version, I am not that sure about Ubuntu. But what do
you want to tell us now? Just because non-free software does exist we whould
resign and give up the idea of free software?
Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary.
> So been not open source is not the issue, well then the problem is kernel is
> GPL and nvidia binarie driver is not ?? _That's mean you can't provide the
That's the legal point, yes.
> nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same server
The GPL does not say anything about _where_ you have to provide the software
but _what_ you habe to provide, namely the source code.
No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in conflict with GPL licence.
> as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal
> issue there.
Would you mind getting a clue about the GPL before telling other people where
there are legal issues and where not?