Vendor only distributable packages - was " Kernel 2059 from Dave Jones fixes nvidia.ko loading"

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 15:28 -0600, John Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 02:23, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > > But has anyone at RH tried asking for permission?  Including preset repo
> > > lines for livna is right out, both legally and morally for the mission
> > > of Fedora.  But what about the idea of a legal but non-free catagory for
> > > Flash, Acrobat, Nvidia, ATI, etc? 
> > 
> > what makes you think NVidia and ATI are legal?
> 
> Ok, I'll bite.  It's legal until they they get busted. 

that's a strange world you live in. That's saying that murder is legal
until you get caught. That's not the case ... 


> Which brings me back to my original question.  If we accept that some
> chunks of closed software are going to remain in most user's machines
> for the foreseeable future, how can the process of obtaining these
> pieces be simplified. 

there is a difference. I have no problem with software being closed. At
all. I do have a problem with software violating the license on my code.
Those are two very distinct cases, at least for me; some people try to
make those the same, but they are fundamentally different.