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 ... 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 nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same server as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal issue there. -- Marcel Mourguiart

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote:

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 ...

Fedora, yes. Or at least we're getting there. There's pain involved, by the way. Some members of the Fedora community don't agree with our stand. But we think it's worth it. If you want to follow the conversation: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.maintainers/2559 --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

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.

You are still talking crap. It does not matter _how_ you distribute software that violates a license, just the fact that you distribute it makes the violation. Sure there are commercial add-ons for these distributions. As long as these commercial add-ons do not violate a license this is legal but if they _do_ violate a license this is no longer legal and this is what we where talking about.

No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in conflict with GPL licence.

Hey, you finally got it! Now you only have to make one final conclusion to find that binary-only kernel drivers are illegal. I still have some hope left that you will make this.

Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server as a depositary ??

If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context.

What about this ?? http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-... Is against GPL ??

No, because it does not include the violating kernel module at all.

And what about this: http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartl... Is against GPL too ??

Yes. Didn't you read the discussions on this list some time before 10.1 was released?

If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse is agains GPL, that's just a lie.

I can just repeat: Get a clue! Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your cd's, not your dvd's but your **server**

It does not matter whether you distribute stuff that violates licenses on media kits or on a server, even if you repeat this false statement a hundred times.

...

Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server

...

as a depositary ??

If you in return explain me what a "depositary" is in this context.

I mean "repository", my english is not that good.

Ok, then the answer is: _Technically_ you can do this with illegal kernel modules (or other software violating a license) but it is _illegal_.

Take a better look: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/

Now you expect me to look into each of these packages just to find out that you are wrong again? But even if it were there it does not matter, it would still be a license violation and I would not do it. If Debian did, I would not care because it would be _their_ risk then, not mine.

So you fix it before 10.1 ?? and what is this: http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/ http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/

What's with this?

Why can't be there nvidia drivers ??

Do you want to repeat me the same sentence every few minutes? I suggest you write it down this time that you don't have to ask again and again: "Because it is a license violation!"

Ok, sorry i'm probably stupid, but again just in case you did't see it here are non-free kernel modules in:

suse 10: http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartl...

suse 10.1 http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/sma...

I'd consider this a bug and if I were Novell I would remove it unless someone explains why Novell thinks this package does not violate the GPL.

So know, again, why the smartlink kernel module is fine, but the nvidia driver is wrong ??

I don't think the smartlink kernel module is fine. And btw: Doing something illegal just because someone else is doing the same does not make it legal. Otherwise I could argue that it is legal to break into my neighbours house because there are various examples of people breaking into otherones houses. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:29:22PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_ with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to distribute this driver all together with the kernel.

And how do you build kernel modules without including the kernel headers? Do a favour for yourself, buy a book about C programming and learn some basics or just stop talking about stuff you don't understand. If you do neither of what I suggested here I will stop discussing this topic with you now because I have given up that you will ever get it.

By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is the illegal too ?

I am not sure about that. I'd recommend you ask a lawyer for that question.

So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is in that server too:

http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartli... http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i38...

1. mirrors.kernel.org is not "the kernel developers". 2. You still failed to show which package in .../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the nVidia kernel binary module. 3. I already tried you to explain to you that you cannot argue that something is legal just because others do it but it seems you just don't get that. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:58:19PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:

* Robert Schiele [2006-09-05 23:52]:

...

2. You still failed to show which package in .../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the nVidia kernel binary module.

What about nvidia-kernel-2.6.~0.8762+1_i386.deb?

That's right. There it is. I would not do that. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

...

[to mutch to repeat here]

so, at all: if you like to way Debian handles all that closed-source driver-stuff, and you don't like the way openSUSE / Novell goes - why the hell are u using it ? why not get the Debian-distro, use it, and leave others that try to do the open-source & law-conform way allone ? and if your new Dedian-system is up and running, just use your favorite searchengine and have a look into the mailinglists of kernel.org. just look how often there are discussion about the GPL, binary drivers, and how to take steps against anything that is in conflict with the GPL. I normaly have big respect of other people mind. I can understand that poeple sometimes think that all this "GPL <--> OSS <--> CS" is bullshit because it is not allways userfriendly. but at the same time I understand the programmers that use the GPL as licence. what each individual user is makeing on his owen desktop / server / network doen't matter because it is his / here owen decision. asking one or two times on a list or at a forum why something is handled like the way it is is OK, but rumbling on the nerves of others when it is not the way you like is more then unfriendly. (but still) with regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll desagree.

The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on. The entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL. By distributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting violation of the GPL. For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to do. What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legal consequences. Rebecca --- Note that these are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

2006/9/7, Rebecca J. Walter : Ok, Rebecca so i was wrong and putting the driver in the same server is a violation of GPL licence ... then again:

suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, linspire, ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers/distros have the kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = distribution" is new to me.

I think you are not understanding the issue. The problem is as a distribution they can not be included. Novell made a choice! SUSE versions prior to the current... had a lot of tailored kernels. Recently the kernel people stopped support for anything non GPL. Since that time every distribution with newer kernels had to make a choice. Either accept and honor the GPL or assume the responibility of possible legal ramifications. What Novell choose was to place the burden on the Hardware People where it rightfully should be as you agree.

funny no body have say nothing about this massive gpl violations.

The problem is hosting the driver implies distribution.

i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the legal consequences.

They go out and download the driver from the vendor sites. That is different than hosting it. Novell is working on solutions to the issuses. It takes time. Watch what happens. -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Hi, I just downloaded and installed version 10.1 on my MacBook Pro using Parallels. It took hours, huge distro! I even patched it and everything. However, I can't authenticate as root to change display resolutions, etc. I don't remember entering a root password when installing and can't find a setting for it. I just have one account called locadmin. The password for that account doesn't work. I am missing something very obvious, but am not seeing it. Please help. Tatsu Ikeda

Hi! First of all, I'm sorry, if this has allready been addressed or that I have missed something in this long thread. On 9/8/06, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

...

i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL, this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary, i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the legal consequences.

Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's site, that's a totally different thing.

Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy enough to get the drivers? -- HG. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:51:30AM +0200, Martin Schlander wrote:

Søndag 10 september 2006 10:39 skrev HG:

...

...

Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's site, that's a totally different thing.

Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy enough to get the drivers?

I guess the script can only be used, provided Nvidia and ATi host KMPs for the relevant SUSE kernel.

Which works (by accident) for SUSE 10.1, since SLE10/10.1 use the same (kernel) code base.

As I understand it is doubtful that ATi and Nvidia will provide KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 kernel(s).

Correct.

I hope the last word hasn't been spoken on that matter.

I do hope so as well ...

It's really a feature that can help move a lot of people to Linux.. especially the ATi-owners. And also a feature that could set openSUSE a part from other distros. Has potential to be a killer feature.

Of course. Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Dirsch schrieb:

Don't we talk about /opt/gnome/bin/gnome-xgl-settings, which is already in compiz package on (open)SUSE 10.1?

I don't know if we talk about that script, but I think its not a good way to have "only that script" - for me for example there is no neet for XGL + compiz. its more like a "nice to see feature", but it is in conflict ( for me et last ) to run VMWare on my machine ( the graphic speed isn't realy good after installing XGL + compiz ). so, as people don't want to use XGL + compiz they will not get the script. ( ok, I know that I can install compiz without XGL, but when I should install compiz to use that script I also can install the driver directly. however ... ).

Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard.

http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html

Hope this helps.

I think the point is not to find any working hints how to install the driver. I think some people like to have a popup during install that says "hi. I've found a nvidia[ati] card. do you like to use the open source driver from openSUSE or a driver directly loaded from the vendors website ?". and after making the choise the script will install the regarding driver.

Best regards, Stefan

also best regards from Berlin, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Dirsch schrieb:

I think we provide this for SLED10, but implemented it a long time after 10.1 has been released and since it's unlikely that we'll have KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 ...

wouldn't the "tiny-nvidia-installer"-script do mutch the same ? ( I didn't have used it so I can't say witch driver it will install witch way ...) Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Hi Rebecca Rebecca J. Walter schrieb:

The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on. The entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL.

If you follow the kernel policy, agreed so far. The future will show, what a judge would say about it. IMHO, this answer is not so clear.

By distributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting violation of the GPL.

The latter I can agree, but please, what is the link between a driver violating the GPL and the interdiction to distribute this driver? IMHO this is nowhere written in the GPL, can you please tell us on which facts/laws/licences this conclusion is based on?

For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to do. What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legal consequences.

Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor. But to get this choice, the distributor has to deliver the binaries, too. Ciao Siegbert P.S.: Sorry Rebecca, I forgot to change the To: to the list, so you will get this twice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Let me first say, that I perfectly understand the wish for open specs for open drivers. That supporting closed modules is a nightmare, neither Novell nor the kernel folks want to do. And I therefore have no problem in accepting, if they are thrown out because of _these_ reasons. Just call it like this and tell the users "We don't want it, even if it influences your fine experience with our product". What I'm doing in the following is disputing the arguments that throwing out can be argued as "forced by the GPL". Andreas Hanke schrieb:

Siegbert Baude schrieb:

...

Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor.

You are wrong: The user's choice is restricted to what the copyright holder permits.

It would be a nightmare if non-contributing users could make decisions that are against the expressed intention of the copyright holders. This would render the whole concept of copyright law and also copyleft pointless.

From the point of view of the judge however, the difference is just the additional demand from the licensor (the kernel folks). But will he find

As Marcel already pointed out, the expressed intention of the copyright holders is the GPL of the kernel source. Anything else would be just insane with regard to the heterogeneous crowd called kernel developers. Any words on any mailing lists or blogs just don't count. So what was never judged in front of a court was the "derived work" part of the GPL. The interpretation of some kernel folks (again there are also contradicting opinions over there) is (in nice words) very "embracing". They say if the proprietary module uses some header files to attach to the kernel interfaces, this means "derived work". But what, if a vendor produces only one piece for many OSs? Let's say a unified driver for Windows, FreeBSD and Linux? And just adds glue to every OS? Do you think you can really say that this work is derived from the Linux kernel then? And yes there is the "FreeBSD Nvidia driver project" at http://fbsd-nvdriver.sourceforge.net/. Read there: [start quote] Q: Will this alone give me accelerated 3d? A: No, this is the stub component to interface with NVIDIA Corporations kernel, in addition to an NVIDIA card that supported 3d acceleration (TNT or later). [end quote] Wrapping Windows drivers for Linux use is common in WLAN area, too, so there are examples for OS independent proprietary drivers. In my conclusion this says, that the argumentation "proprietary drivers in Linux->derived work" is just flawed. Next argument: Where in the GPL are processor "Ring 0" or something similar mentioned? Where "kernel mode" vs. "user land"? Do you think a judge would follow this differentiation, when kernel folks say "proprietary is fine in user land, but not in kernel mode"? In both cases there is just some interface between hardware and driver, syscalls in one case, direct access in the other. Again, I perfectly understand the technical difference and why the kernel folks very much prefer the one solution, but I'm talking about legal issues now. So if there is no mentioning in the GPL of "kernel mode" or "ring 0" and, as mentioned above, using headers doesn't mean derived work, how could a judge differ between accepted user land and "illegal" kernel mode? He just sees code (hardware drivers) running on a system with the Linux kernel as a glue between user and hardware. But somebody tries to convince him that one case is legal whereas the other is illegal, despite no mentioning of the differences in the relevant license. The only difference is, that the licensor in one case says "it is o.k. for me" (he says so, because it does not disturb his technical integrity of the kernel) that the drivers use the kernel interface in user land, but in the other case he says "it is not o.k. for me" (because the driver can tear the complete kernel down). this in the license under which the work is published? Does the judge know anything about linking code, shared libs, statically compiled in or dynamically used? Should he know or should the license just be enough to decide? Let's furthermore assume somebody just takes the kernel, forks it and says, my interpretation of the GPL is, using header files is no derived work. So you have two identical projects with two identical licenses, but one should be illegal with proprietary drivers and one is not? Do you believe this is sensible? As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not, nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also distributing cannot be forbidden. My personal opinion is, there is just an abuse of the GPL in order to force hardware vendors to open specs by social pressure. The GPL never wanted to forbid any use of software together with GPLed code or you could never use any other non-GPL programs on top of your GPL-kernel. The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real interpretation of "derived work". And therefore, if there is some non-derived work it should be o.k. to use it together with GPLed code independent of using syscalls vs. header files. Non-derived in a sensible manner means that the biggest part of the work was done without using anything of GPLed code, which for me is clearly the case for graphics card drivers.

...

But to get this choice, the distributor has to deliver the binaries, too.

Novell is much more than just a "distributor". Novell is part of the kernel community and cannot do things that the rest of the actively contributing community dislikes without being excluded from the community in the long term.

So you say the real reason is social pressure (or should we call it extortion: "If you don't behave as we like, we make your company life a hell")?

You are totally over-estimating your position as a probably non-contributing user. (Correct me if this assumption is wrong.)

Why should this make any difference for you? And yes, besides bug reporting I'm not a kernel contributor. Does this influence the value of my words?

As such, you have no rights to make any choices other than the ones granted by the copyright holders.

Exactly, and the GPL doesn't forbid distribution of non-derived works, as in my eyes proprietary graphics card drivers are. If one header file is worth more than millions of sophisticated code lines, there is maybe something wrong in the interpretation of the value of code work? At least in my opinion it is. Dispute my arguments from above please, but not with technical wishes based on support reasons or somebody's expressed opinions besides the license iteself, but from a legal point of view, because that is all Novell should care about. Ciao Siegbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:

Siegbert,

there are some kernel developers that do considers binary only drivers a violation of the GPL. Just googling around found me the following: http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752

I know this very well, also the doomsday scenario. And I also know that in this world most people just follow the one shouting loudest. Seems the hardliners at kernel.org shout the loudest at the moment.

We at Novell have decided to respect the view of the kernel developers as owner of it.

It might be that you're right and there's no violation - or perhaps none for a specific module but some for other modules, or you're wrong. But this is something for lawyers to discuss and I cannot comment further on the legal side of this,

This is perfectly up to you, just don't call this proven facts, that's all I'm saying. It is just the view of some developers. Was there ever a democratic poll with all kernel contributors about their opinion? And IMHO as long as there are no proven facts for license violations, Novell should care for their users more than for individual opinions. But I'm already satisfied, if you call the beast with the correct name, i.e. "We don't want it because of support reasons both inside the kernel team and for Novell as a company". Just don't abuse the GPL, it does not earn this. Ciao Siegbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Siegbert Baude wrote:

...

[...] As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not, nobody should argue that the "GPL forces proprietary drivers to be thrown out". And as long as there is no illegal action, also distributing cannot be forbidden. [...] [...quite a lot of text snipped...]

I am in complete agreement with this statement!

Pay a lawyer to check if your opinion matches copyright law. A court won't care about your opinion, only about the law. You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claims by kernel developers. The money you'll maybe lose will be your own. I bet there will be many people who want to offload the risk on you. Please be warned that as soon as you offer such an insurance, certain jurisdictions require copyright holders to sue those who infringe on their copyrights to keep the copyrights enforceable. So that insurance idea will probably die after the first court case. But again, you are very welcome to try. Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

_Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_

Yes. Alan Cox (one of the main kernel developers) has written such a letter. A few other kernel developers have done the same. Christoph Hellwig (he also holds copyright on quite a few critical parts of the kernel) has stated: "I'm going to sue them if they use hook called from code I have copyright on."

Normally people send a letter before take you in court.

Since these letters exist and have been published widely, the only hope for developers of non-free kernel modules is that Alan Cox and others don't have enough time/money to sue them. Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

2006/9/16, Marcel Mourguiart :

2006/9/16, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger :

...

Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

...

_Is there a formal letter from kernel developers saying you can't have non-free drivers in your servers or your distro ?_

Yes. Alan Cox (one of the main kernel developers) has written such a letter. A few other kernel developers have done the same. Christoph Hellwig (he also holds copyright on quite a few critical parts of the kernel) has stated: "I'm going to sue them if they use hook called from code I have copyright on."

Funny and why they have non-free kernel modules in the kernel server ??

Have you a link to the letter ??

You know what, never mind Is clear that GPL is protected by law in Germany and USA, is clear too ( for me at least ) that you can't mix or link non-free software with GPL code ( with lgpl you can ). What i think is not clear is the server=distribution, for example when kororaa receive a letter from fsf, they ask to kororaa specifically remove the nvidia and ati driver _from the live cd_, wich they do. BUT they never have ask to remove nvidia / ati drivers from gentoo servers ( kororaa depository ), not a single letter, just nothing. Debian project have a big non-free section in the server, i have never see a letter from fsf asking to remove it because they are braking the GPL. Almost every big distro ( including suse ) have some non-free kernel modules in the server, i have never see fsf asking to remove those files. Ok, they have time/money to make a sue, but they have not the time to write a letter ?? you can read the kororaa issue here: http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059 -- Marcel Mourguiart

2006/9/16, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger :

Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

...

Is clear that GPL is protected by law in Germany and USA, is clear too ( for me at least ) that you can't mix or link non-free software with GPL code ( with lgpl you can ).

What i think is not clear is the server=distribution, for example when kororaa receive a letter from fsf, they ask to kororaa specifically remove the nvidia and ati driver _from the live cd_, wich they do. BUT they never have ask to remove nvidia / ati drivers from gentoo servers ( kororaa depository ), not a single letter, just nothing.

Seems to be an oversight.

...

Debian project have a big non-free section in the server, i have never see a letter from fsf asking to remove it because they are braking the GPL.

As long as the non-free software doesn't include GPL code, there is no problem.

So the obvious questions is why debian can have the nvidia drivers, but suse can't, where is the different ... or Debian is actually braking the GPL ( fsf know about this ? )

Almost every big distro ( including suse ) have some non-free kernel

...

modules in the server, i have never see fsf asking to remove those files.

Since SUSE Linux 10.1 this problem is fixed. I couldn't find any non-free kernel modules for SUSE Linux 10.1 or later on any of the SUSE servers. If you can find such modules, this would be a bug.

Is there a difference is you have non-free kernel modules for olders release ?? isn't the presence of the module it self in the server the problem ? Any way, see the smartlink in suse "extra" http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/

Ok, they have time/money to make a sue, but they have not the time to write

...

a letter ??

you can read the kororaa issue here: http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059

I know about that opinion piece. Rest assured that it is not possible to compile a Linux kernel module without including headers (and code) from the Linux kernel sources. That alone means that you cannot distribute binary only kernel modules. However, if you do so AND if you can prove that some of your code are not a derived work of the Linux kernel, a court may decide you don't have to opensource all of your code. However, that won't help you much if you're not allowed to distribute the modules.

Sure, i just put the link like a reference to what i said before. What i said is the kororaa problem was with the "live cd", but they never remove the nvidia/ati drivers from the server and no body ask for either. -- Marcel Mourguiart

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger schrieb:

Pay a lawyer to check if your opinion matches copyright law. A court won't care about your opinion, only about the law.

But the same is true for the opinion of some kernel developers, isn't it?

You both are very welcome to offer insurance against legal claims by kernel developers. The money you'll maybe lose will be your own. I bet there will be many people who want to offload the risk on you.

And you carry the financial risk of the kernel devs sueing Novell and RedHat, if they would continue to distribute ATI/Nvidia proprietary modules? Your argument is exactly what I called social pressure some mails ago. Actually it's even better as you try it with financial pressure. How could I dare to join the discussion, if I'm not able to pay the financial risk? Bad me. Ciao Siegbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Stop sending private copies of emails going to this list - there is absolutely no reason why I (or others) should be interested in receiving all emails twice!

On other lists dropping people from CC is seen as unfriendly. Thanks for your understanding.

Now back to the actual topic: [...] You're actively supporting this "social pressure" issue because it suits your opinion.

Yes. And I'm proud of it. Seriously, social pressure is more likely to nudge people into compliance than any court order. The legal system works slowly and people have specialized in circumventing it. Social pressure is very difficult to circumvent.

As long as there is no proof that those drivers violate the GPL, I assume that those drivers are indeed in compliance with the law. Again, this is how cases are usually handled in jurisdiction as long as they are open or in doubt.

I won't dispute that proof is essential for any claim. However, I think that it has already been proven for quite a few closed source drivers that they include substantial portions of GPLed code.

If Andreas is indeed right and Debian is violating the GPL license "but nobody will do anything about it because it is the free community-based Linux distro" (quoting Andreas' email), then this is the strongest argument that those kernel developers (and others) threatening to sue companies don't primarily care about right or wrong (the legal truth) but are interested in politics - in other words, they are only interested in forcing companies to write open source drivers, by any means.

I fail to see the logic in your statements above. Even if somebody values legal truth higher than any political goal, he/she might still decide not to (immediately) enforce compliance with it in specific cases for various reasons: * lack of time * lack of money * more prominent cases to go after * fear of counterattacks (physical threats and litigation threats) If you feel that the reasons above are not valid for somebody seeking legal truth as primary goal, the logical conclusion would be that only persons with infinite resources and unlimited protection against any threat can elect legal truth as their number one goal. I doubt such persons exist.

Otherwise they would have to threaten and possibly sue the Debian project as well.

Here social pressure works the other way round. If anybody even suggests that Debian could be unfree, he is in for a very tough ride. However, somebody has to bite that bullet. Could as well be me. Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 12:33:33AM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:

against it would have to be open sourced. But vendors don't even follow the LGPL, or have you seen any vendor of a closed source program/library offer the object files for relinking with a newer version of glibc?

Most commercial applications use the shared library version of the glibc (and many other libraries) and thus don't have to ship anything. You are only violating the license if you don't ship the object code _and_ use static linking. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:54:08AM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:12:54 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

Most commercial applications use the shared library version of the glibc (and many other libraries) and thus don't have to ship anything. You are only violating the license if you don't ship the object code _and_ use static linking.

Oh, have I missed something? Seems I have to reread the LGPL.

It says: [...] Also, you must do one of these things: a) Accompany the work with [...]; and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.) b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with. [...] Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

first of all: What i never says is that SUSE must put binary drivers together with the kernel, i understand why they can't do that and I'm pretty agree with that too, i just saying they can put it in the same server, which according to me is not against GPL.

thats _your_ according - but not Novells. there are already a few statements here on the list from Novell / Suse showing a) the point of view of Novell / Suse and b) saying that they are on working for some more userfriendly ways together with developer and hardware vendors ( in this case with nVidia, as I remember ).

now answering yours .. questions ?

1. Because I'm a suser since 6 years know, i like suse and i think is the best distro out there.

2. I have read some of those discussions and i agree to don't put binary drivers together with the kernel source, but put it in the same server is just something completely different

again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. so if they do, there should no legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts it is.)

3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll desagree.

OK then - you said that often. we have read it. we accept that. now accept that other people think another way.

If i'm wrong, then suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers have the kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory "same server = distribution" is new to me.

ok, a little more theorie then: LAW works on the way, that there must be soneone has to get to the courts when he think someone or something hit his licence. this way it needs that _every_ holder of the licince has to "fight" against every violation. as you mid see: that is time consuming, money consuming. but thats the way LAW works. not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc. think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist about that topic. while some developers accept that there are closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't. "same server = distro": the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. it doesn't matter if you build both from source, or only one of source and offer the other only as binary or both binary or ony other combination. and it doesn't matter how to grand the access - on a media like CD / DVD or via internet etc. listing distros that offers closed-source-drivers tha way you said: as already written here, it doesn't matter if others are doing so. and it even doesn't matter if it is userfriendly or unfriendly. as someone from the developers on the kernel.org-mailinglist has written some times ago: if that means that there will be no big step for linux to the desktop for the mass then it will so. they don't fight against a company in redmond, but for a free and open sourced alternative operation system. *thats* why so many use linux. not only to have an alternative to windows. if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what you have to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same the other way to other people and other companys that don't have your view. I think thats fair. and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some time so that others can work on it. ). so far, best regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

[...]

Ok, i think my point is clear and don't need new clarification, I'm still disagree with you, but there is no misunderstood, just different interpretation so personally i don't see any point to continue the discussion. Thanks to respond in respectable way.

Best regards

you'r welcome . --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here: http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489 Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:

My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:

http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489

Cited from there: In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source driver on all of your hardware. So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users? And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE, otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet access, which still is something not everybody in the world has. Ciao Siegbert P.S.: So from now on I will hopefully remember to change the receiver to the list. ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:

Siegbert Baude writes:

...

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:

...

...

My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:

http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489

...

Cited from there: In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source driver on all of your hardware.

...

So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users?

What *I* (this is my blog entry and not representing official Novell policy as all Coolblogs) say is that I would like to have the chance to run open source drivers!

I understood this, I just used your argument the other way round. Admitted, as mall provocation, but no harm intended. :-)

...

And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE, otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet access, which still is something not everybody in the world has.

You can still run the provided drivers, you will miss 3d support for Nvidia. The right alternative would be to provide open source drivers that support the hardware completely,

Everbody agrees in that. Let's hope that future will bring this. But until then SUSE is about caring for users, which means giving *them* the choice by still distributing what they need to use their hardware. To the legal implications see my other mail just published. Ciao Siegbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Thomas Hertweck schrieb:

T. Lodewick wrote:

...

[...] in USA and germany, for example: in both countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. [...]

Please provide the references.

Cheers, T. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

I can't post a correct reference as I've read about it in the german magazine "c't" from "heise" in 2004 and I don't have the old ones anymore. however, if you need some reference about the GPL and german court, just have a look here:

http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 it's also from the year 2004; you will find a short (german) opberview as also links to the complete text from court ( as pdf, in german and english ). ( but it doesn't cover the act against hardware vendors that have closed source drivers ).

but I will do some research later this weekend. best regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Robert Schiele wrote:

So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major advantage, namely being open-source?

The advantage is that linux is a modern, robust, full-featured unix variant. It's stable, and performs well, and is amazingly useful in diverse situations. It's a great application platform, embedded server, or power user desktop. I use a suse desktop for gaming/multimedia as well as work related tasks. The fact that it's open source is a bug plus, but there are rapidly decreasing benefits to the insistence that no closed source software be allowed to interoperate with the kernel. I'm not ready to say goodbye to sexy video drivers and great video performance, trading them in for a clunky, sluggish desktop experience, all in the name of keeping the evil closed source drivers out. I just want things to work, and I think most computer users feel the same way. and in linux all things should work *at least* as well as in windows, if not a lot better. Just my .02 Joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Marcus Meissner wrote:

Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so)

I'll google it -

Linux worked fine without binary kernel drivers too, even in the desktop space. MGA G400 ruled then.

But of course! I was one of the first people to buy a 3dfx video card back in the day - the voodoo graphix which was the earliest affordable 2d/3d cards, and the in-kernel DRI drivers worked like a champ, no question about it. The landscape has changed around us. Alas, 3dfx is no more, and voodoo graphix cards are getting hard to find. The ati cards with the DRI drivers were always a quick way to lock up the system hard, and I hear that very little has changed on that score. There are few viable alternatives for linux users who need good video performance nowadays. Either you go with nvidia proprietary drivers, which some people object to on religious grounds, but which are indeed fast, stable drivers, or you go with ATI proprietary, which has all the drawbacks of nvidia without the great linux support or quite the same performance, or you go with one of the few video chipsets having full featured OSS drivers - at this point Intel is a promising choice, but that will become clearer as time goes by... Joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org