Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)
Reply on 12-09-2006 10:08:28 <<<> Matthias Hopf wrote: [... a long discussion abut GPL and closed source drivers ... ]
Sorry if I say this like this, but the position of SuSE / Novell in this part is just a hypocrisy: - Novell is developping Xgl / compiz - Xgl / Compiz would NOT have these fancy features, if not the proprietary drivers are installed (see also http://en.opensuse.org/Xgl#Hardware_Advisory) So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) then please: DON'T force people to use them for having the fancy desktop you're building. Or at least offer a way to get the latest drivers for the latest kernels in your Products. The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version? I expect a CLEAR line from Novell in this. Offer us drivers for our hardware that allows us to use your great Xgl / compiz. Dominique
On Sep 12, 06 10:13:12 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
Sorry if I say this like this, but the position of SuSE / Novell in this part is just a hypocrisy: - Novell is developping Xgl / compiz - Xgl / Compiz would NOT have these fancy features, if not the proprietary drivers are installed (see also http://en.opensuse.org/Xgl#Hardware_Advisory)
So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) then please: DON'T force people to use them for having the fancy desktop you're building. Or at least offer a way to get the latest drivers for the latest kernels in your Products.
I understand your point, and to the most part of it I agree. However, different groups have different opinions, that is the case in every bigger company. And the message to the outside world is pretty clear I think. We won't provide binary modules, but we (hopefully) make it easy for the customer if he decides to do so. Also Xgl/compiz works pretty well for intel chips, except OpenGL and accelerated XVideo (non-fullscreen, that is).
The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version?
The problem is not linking, but distributing.
I expect a CLEAR line from Novell in this. Offer us drivers for our hardware that allows us to use your great Xgl / compiz.
Use intel.
Unless you want above mentioned features, then you have to decide
yourself wether you want the features (and risk not complying to GPL -
which isn't totally clear yet), or go the safe path and don't use these
features.
For: "offer us drivers": We are not a hardware vendor. Thus we don't
write drivers ourself. We help fixing them and package them.
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf
Matthias Hopf schrieb:
On Sep 12, 06 10:13:12 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version?
The problem is not linking, but distributing.
Matthias, could you shortly explain or give a link to an explanation why distribution is a problem? Is it just because Novell doesn't want to support (read: offer service for customers with problems) those binary modules or because you think, that the GPL doesn't allow the distribution? The first case I can perfectly understand, but the latter case would be really new to me as AFAIK nowhere in the GPL is written something about packages which are given by the same channels than some GPL code. If it were like this, this would mean in the end, that the GPL and the kernel folks can control what you host on your servers, which can just be not true, can it?
Use intel.
Only exists onboard. What is the Novell solution for AMD users?
For: "offer us drivers": We are not a hardware vendor. Thus we don't write drivers ourself. We help fixing them and package them.
But you are not willing to distribute them anymore or did I get you wrong? Ciao Siegbert P.S.: Also went to Matthias only in the first time, sorry. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
[...] So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) [...]
We all agree? Sorry, no. Even Linus himself says, it's a difficult topic and a "grey zone" at the moment. Some kernel developers say, third-party closed-source drivers are violating the GPL. This can only be true if such drivers, when linked into the kernel, can be considered as "derived from the kernel" - in this case, the closed-source driver is violating the GPL as the kernel itself is distributed under GPL license. However, it's not as clear as some people want us to believe that the third-party driver can be considered as "derived from". The question at the end of the day is how lawyers interpret the term "derived from". As a software developer, my understanding of "derived from" seems to be a bit different from other people's opinion... In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions - although some people don't like it. I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not help to solve the problem at all! Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Thomas Hertweck schrieb:
[some good points]
In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions - although some people don't like it.
thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers "c't" from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of the paper. but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the GPL and the german law. if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again. I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views: - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the rights they have.
I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not help to solve the problem at all!
thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't solve the problem at all too.
Cheers, Th.
best regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
T. Lodewick wrote:
[...] thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers "c't" from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of the paper.
You could not provide the references, therefore your arguments cannot be verified. In a nutshell, your arguments are therefore of no relevance at the moment.
[...] I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views:
- the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court
I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the rights they have.
I would like to know whether binary-only kernel drivers, when linked into the GPLed kernel, violate the GPL license. Nobody has been able to show a proof of this statement so far. You are now talking about the general acceptance of the GPL license and whether German courts recognize the importance of the GPL license etc. Yes, they do and that's good! But this is not the point here. It's only about a very simple question, now already mentioned several times. But the answer seems to be very very complicated. And I am not lawyer...
[...] thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't solve the problem at all too.
It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. The whole discussion would stop if somebody actually had an evidence of this statement. At the moment, it's just a statement without any proof. I believe in open source and open source drivers, so my email cannot be cheap propaganda against it, and indeed it isn't. I am only asking for evidence because I am not taking everything for granted! If this evidence does not exist, then people should stop blaming closed-source drivers and stop threatening companies that produce/distribute these drivers. If the evidence exists, then it should be made public and closed-source drivers should be banned completely. We cannot go on with this "grey zone" that's why I am asking for clarification. Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Thomas Hertweck schrieb: [...]
It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. [...] We cannot go on with this "grey zone" that's why I am asking for clarification.
Cheers, Th.
ok, two points for you ;) I can't tell anymore the number of the paper so I shouldn't talk about it anymore. both sides ( maintainer versus [closed sources] driver vendors ) have problems to show that there point of views are correct and the others aren't. maybe the situation will be better when the "PCI API" that will allow binery drivers to run in userland is part of a kernel some days. and with the "grey zone": I think its clear for all sides that this is something that must be solved. as fast as possible. regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sep 13, 06 18:53:32 +0200, T. Lodewick wrote:
but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the GPL and the german law. if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again.
I vaguely remember that, and it was a completely different case. AFAIR what the router vendors did (there were several) was a pretty rock solid breach of the GPL. This is not perfectly clear in the binary driver situation. They do not ship GPL code without revealing the source.
I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms) isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views:
(should read before answering ;)
- the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court
Nobody ever neglegted that.
I agree total with you that this all is a "gray zone" as you wrote. and I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the rights they have.
Ok, peace :) And world domination =)
I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not help to solve the problem at all!
thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have there owen. to name that views "cheap propaganda" is not realy nice, and with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice "cheap propaganda" against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't solve the problem at all too.
I agree here. The kernel developers have a valid point, and calling that
propaganda doesn't help anyone.
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf
participants (5)
-
Dominique Leuenberger -
Matthias Hopf -
Siegbert Baude -
T. Lodewick -
Thomas Hertweck