Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL 843
AlanS2002 writes "The Kororaa Project, a pre-configured binary install method for Gentoo Linux which bundles nVidia's and ATI binary drivers in its Kororaa Xgl Live CD , has put its Live CD on hold after being accused of violating the GPL. The issue appears to be the distribution of the Linux Kernel and nVidia's/ATI binary drivers together. When the binary drivers are built the GPL'ed code is included in the binary result, which is a violation."
All the more reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if we're going to start getting stories on "Random Joe Programmer Violates the MS EULA".
Re:All the more reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are confused. The GPL is designed to keep software big-F Free. The "caveats and 'gotchas'" are very much the point.
Re:All the more reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All the more reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus speaks the voice of one who sees widespread adoption of Linux as a goal. Others see the creation of a free operating system as the goal instead. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but nor do they go hand in hand. I would rather see Linux remain a niche OS than sacrifice my principles to chase market share. Of course, I'd like to see Linux gain widespread adoption as well. But if it came to a choice between the two, I'll stick with what I believe to be right.
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3)
First and probably foremost, It would apear that the confusion surounding the GPL and the constant misinterpretations could take your free software and close it real fast. Linus already touched on this a few years back [kerneltrap.org] It was my impresions that the whole Nvidia-ATI issue was settled then. Evedently, it has come ba
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can do that. And if you want to install blobware drivers, that's ok too. The license only controls what you can redistribute.
You're perfectly within your rights compiling a binary blob into your kernel. (Not too smart, but hey, it's your choice.) You just can't distribute the result to unsuspecting third
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
It suits me fine, but it doesn't suit many people for this reason. Lacking userbase causes many problems, like the lack of hardware support and ultimately vendor support. It helps nobody.
I seem to detect some aggressiveness in your reply. You have no business in telling me which OS to use or quit using.
HAND
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, you must be confusing me with the average American sheep. I'm not fooled into beleiving that "doing what we say makes you free," no matter whether the "we" is the government or the FSF. The GPL has its place, but that place is not at the pinnacle of "freedom." Restrictions are restrictions, whether they come from Stallman or Gates, and restrictions are the op
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3)
Blast from the past (Score:3)
Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
What would really be nirvana would be for an entire community of willing volunteers to write their driver for free, which could happen if the vendor would just release some damn specs! Then the support cost wouldn't just be lower, it would be zero because the community would be supporting itself!
Besides, "trade secrets" are not necessary for a hardware company to succeed anyway. Look at all the hardware that does have Free drivers: CPUs, mass storage devices, sound cards, network cards, etc. Those don't have any "trade secrets" that prevent drivers from being written, and there is absolutely no reason for video cards (and wireless chips) to be any different!
Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore. (Score:3, Insightful)
What would really be nirvana would be for an entire community of willing volunteers to write their driver for free, which could happen if the vendor would just release some damn specs! Then the support cost wouldn't just be lower, it would be zero because the community would be supporting itself!
Oh yes. I see. Volunteers striving to recreate nVidia drivers. With shaders, Z-pyramids, FSAA, bazillion tricks & tweaks to max out performance. Riight. Maybe ready in 2043? Because,
Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there isn't, sadly, much competition on the high end outside these two companies at the moment, so if you really require more than the free software friendly cards can give you, I guess that's what you have to do. And sadly, ATI cards based on the
Re:All the more reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, i too think this is bullshit. There are alot of users out there that don't have the skills or abilities to install NVidia's or ATI's drivers and have it working corectly. Also, it seems that you cannot use them in a live cd so performance is thrown out. It doesn't matter how free software should be, this just holds it back. It is no wonder propriatary software vendors are fearful and sticking with microsoft only products. Situations like this do nothing but re-enforce all those GPL is viral statments. It is a shame that this hasn't been adressed before. Linus has glanced on the issue with before GPL kernel libraries verses others and non-GPL'd software using them. This topic should be closed at this point in life.
Why not wait to see if this is an issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, an un-identified person sent an email to someone distributing a Live CD making certain claims.
As far as I can see, no one has said whether that person has any code of his/her own in that Linux distribution. Nor has anyone who would be able to say one way or the other been quoted.
Personally, I'd wait until Linus or ATI said that this was wrong before going off on how evil the GPL is.
Don't confuse "Free". (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL is about making the code Free so that anyone can use it and improve it
There are other licenses that are more "Free", depending upon your point of view.Maybe. But then, as soon as any restriction is placed upon any code, you create edge cases. That's nothing new. Which is why we have "expert" lawyers in the field of "intellectual property" law.
Because there are edge cases is no reason to claim that the GPL is evil.
Certainly not when this case rests on one un-identified individual sending one email to one distribution.
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sadly true... The GPL is far too restrictive. I do not believe the FSF will ever 'force' any of the major GPU makers to open source the software.
... but they could always switch to the FreeBSD kernel, they already ha
Re:All the more reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you don't like it, just don't use it. If you want FreeBSD or Windows, you know where to find it.
Re:All the more reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)
One man's "useful" is another man's "treacherous. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is designed to prohibit this for a reason, and it's not because the FSF people enjoy making people's lives difficult, it's to keep Linux and the kernel from becoming dependent on proprietary binary lumps. If you want to taint your kernel by adding proprietary modules, more power to you, but you can't redistribute the result. Every user has to add the tainted bits in themselves.
If every distro could just use the nvidia binary drivers, maybe the people working on the free "nv" driver just wouldn't bother. And then one day nvidia decides (because they suddenly become evil / get bought by Microsoft / whatever) to pull the rug out and cease development of the drivers. A few well-placed cancelled projects could set an operating system years behind the competition.
The GPL attempts to ensure that a basic Linux system is at least functional without proprietary add-ons, so that it can't become the hostage of someone who controls a lump of code that everyone has gotten used to depending on.
Re:One man's "useful" is another man's "treacherou (Score:5, Insightful)
What if I distribute the kernel with instructions on how to add add proprietary module? Would that be OK?
What if I then distrubute the kernel with a helper script that downloads the modules when the user runs it?
What if these modules would reside on the same CD as the kernel, and the script simply copies them from a specific directory instead of copying them from a server?
What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?
And what if this script is a boot script?
But, oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like what kororaa does already...? Where did I cross the line?
Re:One man's "useful" is another man's "treacherou (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine. No problem.
Also fine. This is what the distro's I've used do.
My understanding is that this would be
Cold war era tactics. (Score:3, Interesting)
In practice, the FSF is drawing the line. Its enough for the FSF to say they are going to file a lawsuit, and the offending company usually back down.
This is dangerous, they are playing with the "gray area". At some point one stupid company is going to go for a fight to define what the GPL really means, and then the supreme court will decide after 5 years of lawsuit (because I'm pretty sure they would not stop at a lower court)
It wou
Re:Cold war era tactics. (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL is not a contract, it's a permission slip for doing things when you would otherwise run afoul of copyright law. From the GPL's point of view there is no grey area; you're not allowed to create derived works containing GPL code without the whole derived work being distributable under the terms of the GPL. Period.
The only question becomes wether the GPL applies at all, and that grey area is entirely within copyrigh
Re:One man's "useful" is another man's "treacherou (Score:3, Informative)
Ever wonder why there's no apt-get for Windows? The answer is, because it's proprietary!
You can't apt-get Java because Sun won't let you, because you have to click through an EULA on their website. By law, this process cannot be automated, so a
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that depends. Let's say you are in a country whose constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". If you are a police officer, you would say that's *more* restriction, if you are an average citizen, you would say that's *less* restriction.
If I were selling software, I would say the GPL licence is more restrictive than BSD, as a software user and developer, I think the GPL is less restrictive than BSD. After all, it's the BSD licence that restricts me from seeing the Nokia OS source code.
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It is the Nokia license that restricts you. The BSD license does not contain the restriction.
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that depends. Let's say you are in a country whose constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"
Yeah, like that'll ever fly :p
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. The base code is already open, regardless of how it's used. The modified code which is allowed to be closed under BSD would not suddenly have been open had it been under GPL, because the vendor would have almost certainly chose some other code under a (from their point of view) less restrictive license. Had nothing like that existed, they would probably have written it from scratch. So in either case you didn't lose acces
Re:There's more restricition in BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL restricts the developer, because he's forced to contribute his code back to the community. This is done for the benefit of the end user.
The BSD license restricts the end user, because even though the code running on his device used to be Free, the vendor could chose to close it and cut off his control of his own device at any time. This is done for the benefit of said vendor.
The GPL and BSD licenses are both restrictive, but in different ways. There is no possible license that has zero restrictions for all.
Now that I've made this clear, can we please stop arguing about it and move on?!
no, not yet :) (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the argument is still over whether to protect the (immediate)developer or the end-user/developers further down the line. BSD does the former, GPL the latter.
Yeah yeah, I'm just being a picky bitch... :)
tainted kernel (Score:2, Insightful)
or perhaps im wrong, what do I know, anyway?
Re:tainted kernel (Score:5, Informative)
So don't autoload the drivers and the kernel will not load with a tainted status.
Tom
Re:tainted kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
So don't autoload the drivers and the kernel will not load with a tainted status.
Tom"
Thats bullshit as I look at it.
That driver requires GPL'd code to be compiled. It requires GPL'd code to run. It's obviously kernel-derived and thusly it violates the GPL.
The tainting is there to inform end users that their kernel is tainted with non-gpl'd code it's not there to decide weither
Re:tainted kernel (Score:3, Informative)
Now. The question of whether they can be distributed together, not just run together, is addressed in section 3 of the GPL. Briefly, it states that you must make the source available to any GPL binaries you distribute. Since the GPL binaries in question are the kernel and just about everything besides the nVidia/ATi drivers, you need to have the source for those available. Since those dri
Re:tainted kernel (Score:4, Informative)
As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives unlimited
permission to copy, distribute and modify the configure scripts that
are the output of Autoconf. You need not follow the terms of the GNU
General Public License when using or distributing such scripts, even
though portions of the text of Autoconf appear in them. The GNU
General Public License (GPL) does govern all other use of the material
that constitutes the Autoconf program.
However, if the exception was not there, anything that needs autoconf would have to be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. Not necessarily GPLed itself -- if your piece of software is, for example, under BSD3, anyone can replace GPLed parts with something else and be not bound by the GPL any more.
In nVidia's case, though, there is no such exception, and it would be next to impossible to get it, considering that every single contributor to the Linux kernel would have to grant it. Including those who are dead (in which case you need to track down whoever inherited the copyright) or in persistent vegetative case (in that case you're simply out of luck until they die).
Re:tainted kernel (Score:5, Informative)
So don't autoload the drivers and the kernel will not load with a tainted status.
That doesn't make any difference.
Copyright law prohibits the creation of derived works without permission, and the GPL does not grant that permission unless you distribute source. So the question boils down to "Are the binary-only modules derivative works under the law?".
The answer is: yes and no. The modules come from ATI and NVidia in two parts: a binary-only part that contains all of the interesting code, and some "glue code" that is distributed in source. Both parts have liberal redistribution permissions, which makes the GPL happy, so the big issue is source.
The argument is that the core, binary-only components of their drivers are not derived works of Linux, since they contain no Linux code (not even any headers) and I think they even claim that the same binaries are used on other platforms and wasn't developed specifically for Linux, at least in the beginning. The glue code that they distribute that wraps the binary-only component is clearly a derived work of Linux, but they distribute the source to that.
When a user compiles the glue code and links it with the binary-only component to produce a kernel module, the result is a derived work of the GPL'd Linux kernel. Note that I didn't say "and loads it into a running kernel". That's not really relevant. Technically, it's somewhat unclear whether the GPL gives users the right to create otherwise unauthorized derived works, but the general interpretation (including by the FSF) is that people can do whatever they like, and it's only when they start distributing that the question of whether or not the GPL has granted them permission becomes important.
When someone takes that same compiled glue plus binary module and distributes them, they're distributing a derived work of Linux, without complying with the terms of the GPL, and therefore without permission to distribute under copyright law.
I think it's quite clear that Kororaa cannot do this without infringing Linux copyrights. The only way they can justify it is if they can argue that the binary kernel modules (glue + core binaries) are not, under the law, derived works of Linux. That seems like a tough one, but IANAL, so maybe it's possible.
Re:tainted kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:tainted kernel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tainted kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the sleeping evil of ATI and Nvidia's binary drivers. Most recent 3D games for Linux were developed using these binary drivers. XGL also seems to be written largely for the binary-only drivers (you might get some of the old Radeon's or some of the newer Intel chips to work with DRI, but that doesn't seem to be the emphasis.) The fact that developers are writing software
Re:tainted kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
nVidia developers wrote large parts of the GLX_ext_texture_from_pixmap specification which the whole framework revolves around. They've been contributing to the debate on how to evolve X into the 21st century. Their engineering team have been consistently supporting new features as the X community add them. Not only are nVidia not restricting innovation, they are taking part in it! The fact that
rules are rules... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortunately there are many ways for them to exit this situation, and I hope everything will be cleared soon.
Whaaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything I would have expected this to be a violation of nVidia and ATI's copyright, distributing their drivers rather than sending people to their respective websites to download.
Re:Whaaa? (Score:2, Redundant)
Nope. You have to provide every piece of source code necessary to build it. The maintainers of KORORAA don't have the source code to NVidia and ATI drivers. Hence the violation.
If anything I would have expected this to be a violation of nVidia and ATI's copyright, distributing their drivers rather than sen
Re:Whaaa? (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's blatently wrong. OpenWRT includes the closed source BroadComm network driver, and RedHat Enterprise includes lots of Redhat only software that isn't GPL.
Now, if you created your own custom kernel in order to make the binary drivers work, but then didn't include the source code for that, I would agree with you. But they did
Re:Whaaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
If OpenWRT is distributing a Linux kernel with closed-source software linked into it, then yes, they are violating the GPL.
and RedHat Enterprise includes lots of Redhat only software that isn't GPL.
As far as I know, RHEL doesn't allow their trademark to be redistributed. That's a very different thing.
Now, if you created your own custom kernel in order to make the binary drivers work, but then didn't include the source code for that, I would agree with you. But they didn't modify the kernel at all. They just compiled kernel modules.
But the kernel modules are based on the Linux kernel. They use hidden magical interfaces. They don't necessarily make the modules GPL (says Linus), but that doesn't mean the resulting linked modules can be redistributed.
If the drivers themselves were "Derived works" then that would prohibit distribution. However, that would also prevent people from using them at all and require ATI and nVidia open sourced the drivers. This is not the case, though. The drivers contain a GPL kernel interface and a binary only driver. The kernel interface that the ATI and nVidia drivers use is the derived work, and is opensource. You can get it in the respective packages from ATI and nVidia's websites.
You're confused. The GPL isn't a usage-license, it's a redistribution license. You're free to download ATI or NVidia's copyrighted work (as they say- that's their distribution) and compile and link them into your kernel. You cannot redistribute your binary modules, or your built kernel with them, because you cannot satisfy the requirement of the GPL that says you need to be able to provide source code for those things.
Re:Whaaa? (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not know what you are talking about.
NVidia cannot produce a GPL violation because NVidia is not redistributing NVidia's software. They are the copyright older. If you give someone else NVidia's software then you are redistributing it.
GPL only applies to redistribution.
The interface you can treat as LGPL.
You're confused. GPL and LGPL are redistribution licenses. They are not usage licenses.
Linus explicitly said that some of the interfaces are stable and do not constitute aggregation. Of those interfaces, all of the syscall-exported interfaces and a few kernel-internal interfaces.
So the question is basically can someone link a closed source binary to a LGPL binary then link the LGPL binary to a GPL binary?
You can link anything you want. Usage cannot be restricted by licenses unless you sign them.
Linking anything to GPL-covered works is GPL (except with certain exceptions). Even if it's LGPL'd- if linked, anyone you distribute the linked binary to must have the right to redistribute it under the GPL (although the LGPL is more permissive). If you cannot guarantee that right, then you cannot distribute it to them.
Hence the reason NVidia doesn't distribute linked code, just "patches".
It's also the reason KORORAA cannot link and apply these "patches" and then redistribute the patched program. That's copyright violation.
This is a rare case where I doubt the FSF would even attempt to pursue as it could very easily lead to a court decision against the GPL.
You are not a lawyer. Or a judge for that matter.
KORORAA doesn't have the right to redistribute Linux. They can assume that right if they meet the FSF's requirements (as outlined the GNU GPL v2). If they do not or cannot meet those requirements, then they do not have any right to redistribute Linux.
Re:Whaaa? (Score:3, Funny)
What am I going to do for my 30th birthday in less than a month?
Re:Whaaa? (Score:3, Informative)
There is no script. That's the problem. They're linking the binary modules themselves and distributing those.
If someone adds this software that I provide (the binary, the extra interface file and the script) to their favorite OS distribution of the month, which happens to be GPLed, are they in violation of the license, when they distribute a disk with the OS and my code?
That depends. Everyone likes fictional examples because it's easier to point out
No other options. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, who are the non-suckers? The people who bought video hardware from
3Dlabs doesn't make GPUs anymore, 3dfx got bought by NVidia, and XGI is gone. That leaves ATI, NVidia, Matrox, and Intel making GPUs. Does Matrox or Intel release source code to their drivers? (Is Matrox even still in the consumer graphics card business?) Who else is there? ATI and NVidia basically have the market for aftermarket cards cornered, to the best of my knowledge, and in both cases their drivers are closed-source. There really aren't any other options for most people.
Personally I'd say go with NVidia, because they seem markedly less evil and their binary drivers seem to suck less, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
Re:No other options. (Score:3, Interesting)
I use Matrox boards. The Xorg driver works fine with them, and I'm very happy. I bought about 10 of these dual-head G400 boards for 7$USD a piece and I've been using them a lot lately.
Personally I'd say go with NVidia, because they seem markedly less evil and their binary drivers seem to suck less, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
Then don't. Tell them you don't want their permission to give th
Re:No other options. (Score:3, Informative)
I use Radeon 9800 Pro with DRI, driver is not perfect, but it works.
There is no closed source software in my kernel and I use OpenGL a lot.
Intel (Score:4, Informative)
While people may report that some Matrox or ATI cards work fine with open source drivers, those are all old, discontinued cards. If you want to buy new hardware, Intel is basically your only choice for open source drivers.
Re:Intel (Score:3, Insightful)
The Intel chip is "DX9" capable, which is all that's needed for fancy desktop effects, while the Matrox is the same old stuff they've been churning out since the 20th century.
Yes, Matrox distributes open-source drivers (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, Matrox is still in the business, but they're not really competing directly against nVidia and ATI in the games market -- for example, they provide no hardware vertex or pixel shaders in their consumer cards. And yes, Matrox does release driver source code.
I recently bought a Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe [matrox.com], and not only does it list Linux on the retail box alongside the other operating systems, but their product page proclaims it as "the world's first PCI Express graphics card with open-source display drivers for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems". And they're quite inexpensive too, which is nice.
The drivers are in recent kernels already too, although I'm getting "drmOpenDevice: Open failed" problems at the moment so DRI is being disabled and thus 3D isn't accelerated on that box just now. I hope it's just a local misconfiguration.
Not really sure what the status is beyond that, but in theory the G550 should have good support in Linux without needing any binary modules.
Go Matrox! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Interesting)
It most needs, or you want most? Besides, have you heard mini-computers these days? They're pretty silent, making no noise except under heavy load.
It needs to lose the moving parts. This would have already happened if we didn't keep adding fluff just because we can.
Interesting reasoning you've got there. So, all of those thousands of people that researched 3D algorithms for the past decade have been doing so to add fluff to PCs. In addition, if those peo
burninating some karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I've got karma to burn.
I just happen to enjoy playing Doom3 and UT 2004. What card other than an ATI or Nvidia is going to pull that off and has open source drivers?
Actually, I use Nvidia's binary driver. :P
I was just waiting for one of you open source utopians to express the "closed source games are evil" opinion. Let's face it, while there have been some good open source games released, 99% of the games in the world are closed source, and some of them I have deemed are worth my time and money spent. The game industry wouldn't truly exist without the profit motive, and in general they see the need to keep things closed to ensure that.
Games don't need to be closed source to make money. That's what you're probably thinking at the moment. The only system that would work that I can think of is if a source CD was included in the same box as the binary CD. Obviously, you couldn't post the source on a publicly accessible server, for people who can would download the source and compile the game - never giving the company one dollar.
Things to keep in mind:
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the kernel can load your module doesn't mean your modules is GPLed. The way I understand the GPL is anything you derive from GPL code must be open source and what not. The drivers are proprietary and just happen to be compatible with GPL code.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3)
E.g. if glibc was GPL it means you couldn't write closed source binary only software. Therefore the glibc package is LGPL which allows this.
Now, going the otherway
So you give out a OSS package [and the source] and then include the drivers. The package won't be GPL even though components of it are.
I don't see the problem there.
Tom
You've got the dependency graph wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Well, what nVidia chose to do in this case is to link the shim with their binary driver, and they're perfectly entitled to do that, by their copyright. Furthermore, since the shim and the binary driver are separate components from the kernel, they can certainly be shipped on the same CD as GPL components, as long as the binary code is not linked to the kernel. And it's not.
So you see, by virtue of being the copyright holders of the shim and GPL'ing it, nVidia easily comply with the requirements of the GPL but aren't constrained in what else they do with it.
If the binary module were linked against the kernel then you'd be right, but it's not. At no point in time did the binary module even get a sniff of the kernel, and it's shipped without knowing anything about it, nor viceversa.
Yes, the dependency is contrived, but that's how the GPL forced them to rearrange their code dependency graph in order to stay on the good side of the GPL's guidelines.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though I doubt that they don't include GPL code, they are certainly based on GPL code.
Linux is under the GPL, and not the LGPL.
This is like saying my source files are GPLed because GCC can parse them.
Except GCC has an explicit note in its license that says that C source files that GCC (and perhaps only GCC- say using GCCisms) can compile are not automatically under the GPL.
This doesn't negate other reasons why these C files might be redistri
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that's exactly what it means
If your argument were correct, then it would be a violation of GPL for any distribution to make these drivers available. Yes, the major distributions do make them available for download, and no one, not even the FSF, says they are violation the GPL.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You're confused.
If the kernel can load the module, it's because the kernels' source code, and the GNU toolchain were available to build it.
Hence the reason NVidia and ATI don't distribute kernel modules, but instead a build-system that may-or-may-not be legal
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignoring the question of GCC-specific code, think about it for a second. If all source that GCC can compile were automatically to fall under the GPL, then all standards-compliant C code would automatically be GPLed. In other words, the mere existence of GCC would force all code written in C to be GPLed.
The note isn't there to grant people an
Aggregation is not linking! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only when the CD is booted and the drivers loaded that a runtime image containing the binary modules linked with the kernel is created, and not before.
Distributing an aggregation is perfectly legit, according to the guidelines for GPL v2. (Dunno about v3).
Re:Aggregation is not linking! (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you think that nvidia doesn't precompile their shim code too, when they distribute their kernel module. Of course, If copyright affected Kororaa, then it should a
Re:Aggregation is not linking! (Score:5, Informative)
According to information that the originator of Kororaa received from NVidia while investigating this matter, this is not true.
NVidia states that the binary is the same binary they use in all Systems. Be they Linux, BSD, Windows, or Bob's Unknown Mini-OS. The "shim" is the glue code they write that is OS specific that makes calls into the binary.
Re:Aggregation is not linking! (Score:4, Informative)
That is not "linking" in the sense that is covered by the GPL. The kernel headers contain declarations for kernel functions, structures, and macros. They don't actually produce any object code that is linked in the binary. The binary driver is produced from two object files, one distributed binary-only by NVIDIA and one compiled from NVIDIA's shim source, which is explicitly allowed to be linked with the binary, and not under the GPL. So no mixture of proprietary and GPL code occurs until runtime, when you actually use the driver, and while that is technically a GPL violation since the kernel runs in a single address space (hence the "tainted kernel" messages) neither NVIDIA nor any distributor is liable for it.
Why do you think that nvidia doesn't precompile their shim code too, when they distribute their kernel module.
They do, actually, or at least they used to (for the default kernels of specific distributions). Its just that the Linux kernel doesn't have a stable binary ABI for drivers, so it is necessary to recompile it for every single different kernel version. If it was up to them they likely wouldn't distribute any code at all, just a binary module, but because of the way Linux is that isn't practical. Other distributions, including even Debian, have also distributed linked binaries of the NVIDIA kernel drivers without trouble.
GPL and the copyright laws (Score:3, Interesting)
as a GPL kernel is copyright violation, while having them as separate downloads is OK ?
This seems like a very naive interpretation of the "derived work". Are there any laws or precedents
that support it ?
It all depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It all depends (Score:2)
Re:It all depends (Score:2)
Re:It all depends (Score:2)
Re:It all depends (Score:2)
Not really a bad try since the GPL exists to force others views on what is and is not right but since the GPL does allow this whomever made the claim is wrong.
It's up to the copyright holders (Score:3, Insightful)
Only copyright holders have standing [wikipedia.org] to bring suit.
That's Just One.... (Score:2)
I'm not sure why the Solaris distros haven't been shut down for similar reasons.
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki [gnusolaris.org]
Nexenta and their apt repository of software some of which must conflict with the Solaris kernel.
I was very tempted to start experimenting with an OpenSolaris, but there appears to be some license incompatibilities.
Oh no!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
KILL KILL KILL!!! STOP THEM!!!
Seriously, they put linkable drivers on a CD... That's 100% OK.
Stop trying to stop Linux you Microsoft plant, nice try tho.
I spit (Score:4, Insightful)
This is really not a reasonable thing to expect from a user, not even from a user like me who has been running linux since 0.99pl1.
Problem is with binary drivers license (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are certainly legal gotchas with such distribution as Kororaa, but my pick is that GPL is "lesser evil" here.
nvidia and ati are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
1) as of the new xorg there is no need for video drivers to be in the kernel.
2) indeed the kernel people have been urging ati and nv to move their drivers out to userland.
3) their drivers need a lot of rework to get to userland, plus they will run approx. 1% slower.
4) neither ati nor nvidia want to lose 1% performance, let alone all the time and testing to move the code.
5) if one moves before the other, the average gaymer, i mean laymer, oops, gamer magazine draws charts that make 1% seem like the entire frickin' page width.
bye now.
What a prick (Score:5, Insightful)
The most infuriating thing is how he goes for the puppy angle with this bullshit:
The 'open source spirit of Linux' is that Open Source is supposed to enable people to stop worrying about this licensing crap. If nVidia and ATI aren't complaining, there shouldn't be an issue on our side.And for the most part there isn't. Which is why it's even more sad that he's actually caving to this:
My overall opinion is that this Koraraa guy ought to grow a pair and wait to see what the non-basement-dwelling grownups have to say about his distro's licensing.Re:What a prick (Score:3)
But in this case, it's a closed source binary that's not doing much more than looking at some GPL code. The intention of the GPL is that improvements to GPL code must remain free. It'd be incredibly arrogant to say that these closed source drivers are no more than "improvements" to some kernel module interface code.
They aren't. And even if there was
Re:What a prick (Score:4, Informative)
People choose the GPL for all sorts of reasons. Some kernel developers like the GPL because they want the kernel, including hardware drivers, to remain free software. They're actively opposed to the idea of binary-only drivers proliferating, even if it means more hardware support for Linux. Did you happen to read the link I gave you?
The issue isn't whether it's arrogant to say that; the issue is whether or not it's legal to distribute the NVidia driver with the Linux kernel. My personal opinion is that it is legal, actually, but treating the whole issue as "licensing crap" is wrong. It's like a child complaining about having to eat dinner before having cookies. "But I like cookies! Why can't I just have cookies?"
I know you like hardware support. I like cookies. It's not that simple, though, and saying "stop worrying and eat cookies" doesn't make it that simple. You should think about why Linux is so much better and more successful than its non-GPLed competitors, and why Linus said that relicensing Linux under the GPL was the best thing he ever did.
Why do you think it's just RMS, and that everybody who choosed to use his license actually doesn't agree with most of what it's supposed to mean? Where did you get that idea?
You really should read that link I included. Here, I'll include it again:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
I'll even save you some clicking: Some kernel developers (Arjan van de Ven and Andrea Arcangeli) are very concerned about the popularity of binary kernel drivers, and see it possibly eroding Linux's freeness, and interfering with the process of kernel development even for those not using the binary drivers. That's the opinion of people who are heavily involved in kernel development. You say it has "exactly zero to do with creating quality free code"; why do you think you know better than they do?
There is no GPL code in the binary driver! (Score:3, Informative)
There is no GPL code in the binary driver!
Nobody claims there is and that's not the issue here.
One really has to ask how this article submission could have been acceptec, especially as the way the nvidia driver works is clearly spelled out on the kororaa hompage:
The NVIDIA kernel module consists of two pieces: a binary-only
portion and a kernel interface layer (aka the "shim"). The
binary-only portion is not Linux-specific (the same code is used
on Windows, Solaris, etc), and does not include any Linux kernel
header files when it is built. The shim is provided in source code
form with the driver package, and this is the piece that is compiled
for your version and configuration of the Linux kernel. The shim
is the only piece that references Linux kernel data structures or
macros, and only does so to the extent that is needed to provide
the functionality of a modern graphics driver. After the shim is
compiled, it is linked with the binary-only portion, to produce
the final NVIDIA kernel module.
With Koroaa... (Score:3, Funny)
AC'd because the mods will tear me to shreds.
Derivative work interpretation is scary (Score:4, Insightful)
If you do static linking of some GPL code with your code, then it's not just a derivative work, you are actually including somebody else's code and must get their permission. But static linking is of course less and less common. Modules that call libraries are only bound to the libraries at runtime today. Code is written to APIs but bound at runtime.
This is thus a "loophole" in the GPL, turning it into the LGPL in some interpretations, and to fight that, we see this interpretation that just writing code to an API, making use of the API definition found in header files, makes you a derivative work. I don't think this is a good interpretation for a free software movement to be pushing, even if it means some loopholes.
Re:Derivative work interpretation is scary (Score:4, Insightful)
A Shame, Either Way You Look At It (Score:4, Insightful)
TECHNICALLY, seems the GPL prohibits what Kororaa is doing with their Live CD. HOWEVER, seems Linus would side with them. HOWEVER HOWEVER, this would have to be legally debated, in other words, "defended". There's no explicit legal protection, and to get a judgment call would require money, lawyers, and being tangled in a lawsuit.
All of which would be silly and embarrassing both inside, and outside, of The Community.
I, personally, am very much in favor of "completely free (as in speech)" software. Mr. Stallman may be a "stickler", but I find him heroically inflexible. The world needs MORE Mr. Stallmans who actually and honestly stand tall, stand proud for what they believe in. And I'm not kissing ass here: I share his vision, but am far weaker in my convictions.
The pragmatist in me thinks that the Linux kernel's license should be changed to the LGPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html [gnu.org]) I know full well, however, that this would be a huge step backward for Freedom. (Anybody saying otherwise is either [1.a] simply not intelligent enough to understand, or [1.b] hasn't bothered to consider the implications, [2] has ulterior motives, and/or [3] has a personal vendetta against RMS due to personality conflict. "Consider the messenger...")
But PRACTICALLY, it would enable real headway on the driver/support front. I think ATI and nVidia (and every other closed-source **DRIVER** maker) is quite daft. But they have their "reasons", even if we neither know, nor understand them.
It's laudable to DREAM of a world where all software is Free, both as in Speech AND as in Beer. Bur for now, and for the foreseeable future, we all live and work in the Real World. Unless we're friendly and play nice with the other children, most proprietary companies, especially hardware creators, may very well choose to take their balls and go home. (To those who cry, "GOOD RIDDANCE!", I ask for you to tell us all of the open-source-hardware, with accompanying open-source drivers, to replace their wares with!) Free and Open (Source) Software makes its virtues self-evident. We need not be antagonistic.
The truth of the matter is that the hardware we want open-sourced drivers for the most is made by companies comfortably at the top of their game. They sell PLENTY of hardware to not need to worry/care about The Community one iota. They ha
A modest proposal... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll make a brief aside here to remind you that any interpreted "program" is both code and data. To the interpreter, it's just data. The interpreter loads some text (just data), builds the parse tree (still data), and instantiates the various code objects it represents (STILL data). However, once you actually jump to an address and start executing that data, it becomes a program.
So now I'll repeat my previous rhetorical question: how do you define "source code" for data? Here's my modest proposal:Just compile this program and feed it the binary you need to "decompile". It will output a C program that you can ship as the "source code" for the binary. If you plan to ship your binary with GPL'd code, be sure to license the newly generated source code under the GPL or a compatable license. Oh yeah, and a word of warning: the source code will probably be significantly larger than the binary, even if you gzip it.
I guess OpenWRT and RedHat are also in violoation (Score:2)
Even if it's a driver only issue, the Linksys WRT54G and other BroadComm based routers, WAPs, etc that run linux all include a closed source, binary only BroadComm driver with their distributions. This is even re-distributed in OpenWRT.
I'm pretty sure Kororaa is not in violation simp
Re:I guess OpenWRT and RedHat are also in violoati (Score:2)
Red Hat doesn't even distribute basic mp3 players because they might violate someones license. I can't think of a single file or package distributed with Fedora or RHEL that is not available in source to all.
Re:proof that the GPL is too invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux was not put together for your convenience.
I'll leave it there as more than one concept may overload your processor.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
Re:proof that the GPL is too invasive (Score:2)
I really don't think this will happen at all. What makes their graphics cards work is all of the inards, not the way it interfaces with the rest of the software on the computer (the driver). Both Intel and AMD have completely open interfaces and many people have written "drivers" for these pro
A counter-argument (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, installing drivers for your ethernet, cd drive, etc is very simple on linux, because the drivers are open source and in kernel. Attempting to maintain a glue between the kernel and your driver is painful and prone to failure; unlike in tree drivers, when someone else breaks code you depended on, you have to fix it, not them. Recall that nvidia's nforce2 boards are better supported in the kernel than by nVidia itself! With no documents to support them in their efforts, even. I hear they even now recommend the reverse engineered driver over their own, but don't distribute or improve, oddly. If nvidia's drivers were GPL'd, installing them would be as simple as installing anything else.
It's pretty naive to think that their IP is so valuable that the source code would disclose it any more than the underlying binary code does. Their IP is already in jeopardy by distributing the software. One of the many reasons I suspect they have no intention of participating in OSS is that there's a number of speed over quality decisions written into it that would be exposed, perhaps even application specific optimizations. While this could be neat to have optimized drivers on a per game basis, this is never disclosed to the public (and when revealed sparks not applause but public humiliation). Furthermore, it means that optimizations are done on their terms, not the public's. Any application specific optimizations are given only to a specific application, with no cross over improvement in other applications, or the ability to make the change. If NVIDIA really wanted to share their drivers with the public and gain all the benefits often touted, they'd stop pointing at other people's IP they own and begin to change it. They haven't, and they won't. What nefarious secrets lie within? Perhaps just a case of "this stuff is really hard, and we don't do it very well?"
Just a thought -- if you dislike the open source spirit as embodied by the GPL, why not do something productive about it, like make a liveCD based on BSD running Xgl. There's nvidia drivers for BSD too, ya know. And for all the talk about pressuring vendors to open their code, they have no qualms about giving it away reguardless with no expectation of anything in return. Linux needs to focus on being Linux, not beating Redmond.
The good news is that I suspect the person who wrote to Kororaa doesn't actually have any basis for the claim. While nvidia's legality has been on shady grounds, the message published doesn't provide any insightful evidence in either direction. Anyone seriously familiar with the kernel and binary objects should be familiar with the recurring arguments and whatnot. It's clear to me that if the drivers themselves were in violation, nvidia would have been sued some time ago.