Some devices will not work in Linux after Jan 2008

As most of you know, Greg Kroah Hartman of Novell has been pushing to have binary modules banned from working with the Linux kernel.  Well he has succeeded.  After Jan, 2008 Kernel mode drivers that are not GPL will no longer work in Linux.  Am I the only one that thinks this just blows the pooch?  Do you guys think the hardware OEM's will just open source their work or do you think the Linux community is shooting itself in the foot (kneecap, Hand, Shoulder)

rjdohnert wrote:

As most of you know, Greg Kroah Hartman of Novell has been pushing to have binary modules banned from working with the Linux kernel.  Well he has succeeded.  After Jan, 2008 Kernel mode drivers that are not GPL will no longer work in Linux.  Am I the only one that thinks this just blows the pooch?  Do you guys think the hardware OEM's will just open source their work or do you think the Linux community is shooting itself in the foot (kneecap, Hand, Shoulder)

Novell uses binary modules in its own projects!  They're shooting themselves in the foot.

rjdohnert wrote:

As most of you know, Greg Kroah Hartman of Novell has been pushing to have binary modules banned from working with the Linux kernel.  Well he has succeeded.  After Jan, 2008 Kernel mode drivers that are not GPL will no longer work in Linux.  Am I the only one that thinks this just blows the pooch?  Do you guys think the hardware OEM's will just open source their work or do you think the Linux community is shooting itself in the foot (kneecap, Hand, Shoulder)

there is an old saying that I think describes a kind of illness that some folks on Open SOurce / Linux have:

"cut off your nose to spite your face"

I have seen a number of places where Linux could make much more headway as a mainstream OS - but hard headed "purists" say no and as a result they never gain mass user base outside of the "Tech" world.

Nope.  What actually happened is  Linus Torvalds said no and Greg changed his mind.

Yeah, this pretty much cannot happen because the GPL only has jursidiction over code distribution.

The user who recieves the code may legally do whatever they please with it, including the installment of proprietary blobs.

Only if they distribute changes to the public, will they be bound by the license. The public, however, doesn't necessarly have to mean your friends, family, or coworkers, whom you may wish to give your code to.

If the GPL placed restraints on what I could personally do with software and code, I'd pass it off as viral DRM-like license.

Regards,
Vincent

 

I am going to have to side with Linus on this one, its dumb.  There are some very big advantages to having open source drivers on linux (kernel developers will update your drivers for free to new kernel versions if your driver is accepted into the tree).  This allows them to constantly churn the internal kernel interfaces for improvement and not break existing drivers.

But that is not to say they should do this, its a step in the wrong direction.

At least someone in the Linux community has their head screwed on tight (Linus).

Binary drivers are illegal to use in the Linux kernel.  The GPL forbids them the FSF forbids them.  Linus Torvalds doesnt want to comply with the wishes of developers and the community I say to fork the kernel, start a pure GPL 3 kernel where Binary drivers cannot be used at all, pull permission for him to use developers works and watch his crippled kernel die.  By allowing binary drivers Linus is violating the GPL.

How can binary drivers violate the GPL if they don't depend on any GPL code?

The FSF forbids them?  So like Stallman will come arrest you?  Haha

It is so sad to see Linux on the verge of taking such huge steps backward.

nightski wrote:



How can binary drivers violate the GPL if they don't depend on any GPL code?

The FSF forbids them?  So like Stallman will come arrest you?  Haha

It is so sad to see Linux on the verge of taking such huge steps backward.

Its not a step backwards, its a step forward for freedom.  My only hope is that this goes through then substandard code will be pushed out and proper support for devices will be in place. 

corona_coder wrote:



nightski wrote:  How can binary drivers violate the GPL if they don't depend on any GPL code? The FSF forbids them?  So like Stallman will come arrest you?  Haha It is so sad to see Linux on the verge of taking such huge steps backward.

Its not a step backwards, its a step forward for freedom.  My only hope is that this goes through then substandard code will be pushed out and proper support for devices will be in place. 

RMS: You must not use binary drivers
nVidia: DIAF, hippie.
RMS: We'll fork the code and leave you stranded
nVidia:  Fork off.

@corona_coder:
Don't you have something better to do then pissing off everybody?

First off non-gpl drivers are legal, the gpl only comes in play when redistributing the kernel with these drivers loaded.
So for the end-user it's perfectly legal for them to install and use them, it's illegal to redistribute the modified kernel(not driver) to your friends.

Second, forking the kernel won't help you one bit, since the kernel is GPLv2 only and can't be licensed under GPLv3.

Third, this patch came to a developers frustration of fixing bugs of these 'tainted' kernels.  And wasn't a political move more a pragmatic move.

And yeah patch is already removed.

corona_coder wrote:

Binary drivers are illegal to use in the Linux kernel.  The GPL forbids them the FSF forbids them.  Linus Torvalds doesnt want to comply with the wishes of developers and the community I say to fork the kernel, start a pure GPL 3 kernel where Binary drivers cannot be used at all, pull permission for him to use developers works and watch his crippled kernel die.  By allowing binary drivers Linus is violating the GPL.

To fork the kernel and make it a pure GPL 3 kernel, all of Torvalds' code would have to be removed, because he won't license it under v3.  Since Torvalds' code is pretty much the foundation of the kernel, they wouldn't be left with anything if they forked it, except legal issues about what they can and can't use.

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:



corona_coder wrote:Binary drivers are illegal to use in the Linux kernel.  The GPL forbids them the FSF forbids them.  Linus Torvalds doesnt want to comply with the wishes of developers and the community I say to fork the kernel, start a pure GPL 3 kernel where Binary drivers cannot be used at all, pull permission for him to use developers works and watch his crippled kernel die.  By allowing binary drivers Linus is violating the GPL.

To fork the kernel and make it a pure GPL 3 kernel, all of Torvalds' code would have to be removed, because he won't license it under v3.  Since Torvalds' code is pretty much the foundation of the kernel, they wouldn't be left with anything if they forked it, except legal issues about what they can and can't use.

Torvalds hasnt written any code in years.  The amount of his code in the kernel is miniscule at most and easily replaced.  Its time for a change, he doesnt run anything.  Last time I checked it was a community effort.  Its time for new leadership.  According to that archive anyway, Torvalds violated the GPL when he wrote Linux.

rjdohnert wrote:

As most of you know, Greg Kroah Hartman of Novell has been pushing to have binary modules banned from working with the Linux kernel.  Well he has succeeded.  After Jan, 2008 Kernel mode drivers that are not GPL will no longer work in Linux.  Am I the only one that thinks this just blows the pooch?  Do you guys think the hardware OEM's will just open source their work or do you think the Linux community is shooting itself in the foot (kneecap, Hand, Shoulder)

Some devices do not work in Linux today.

Device drivers is where Linux is lacking. Linux needs an easy way to install Open Source modules, however the hardware manufactures must provide the Open Source drivers for their products just like they provide Windows drivers. Open Source drivers for Linux is  the smart thing to do. The problem is making the hardware manufactures see this. Open Source can make Linux drivers superior to Windows drivers. Look what the MADWIFI driver has done for the Atheros NIC in Linux machines as compared to the Windows drivers for this card.

FXEF

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that open source drivers are a bad thing (see my earlier post actually).  But rather that attempting ot make it illegal to have a closed source kernel module is a bad thing.

What if Microsoft made it illegal to use open source software on Windows?

Yes, that is how ridiculous this sounds.

nightski wrote:

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that open source drivers are a bad thing (see my earlier post actually).  But rather that attempting ot make it illegal to have a closed source kernel module is a bad thing.

What if Microsoft made it illegal to use open source software on Windows?

Yes, that is how ridiculous this sounds.

I'm not saying that closed source drivers are bad or should be made illegal on Linux. I just think device manufactures should provide Open Source drivers for their products and therefore no need to use a wrapper with a Windows closed source driver. Many of the manufactures don't even provide a Linux closed source driver. Belive it or not, but device drivers in Linux is the number one issue that most users have. Just can't get all their devices to work in Linux. I don't care how stable or secure Linux is, if your devices won't work, it's not worth much.

FXEF

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that open source drivers are a bad thing (see my earlier post actually).  But rather that attempting ot make it illegal to have a closed source kernel module is a bad thing.

What if Microsoft made it illegal to use open source software on Windows?

Yes, that is how ridiculous this sounds.

True but even in Vista 64 you can't use unsigned drivers.  If it means better drivers in either system I can go for it I guess