nvidia

[Les Mikesell]

Craig White wrote:

>> Regarding the GPL, though, it is all a matter of religion.  Mine is that 
>> making something deliberately not interoperate with something else, 
>> whether by refusing to publish an interface spec, refusing to use 
>> standard protocols, or licensing in such a way that interoperation (or 
>> distributing working components together)is prohibited will harm random 
>> people and is thus pure evil.
> ----
> you are of course calling the Linux kernel evil - notwithstanding that
> the intent was always to restrict the ability of commercial interests so
> that the source and the endless improvements upon always remained
> available to all users.

This case has never been entirely clear.  In the early days, Linus 
stated that the kernel module interface was in fact an interface and 
proprietary modules were permitted. And despite current waffling, he has 
never clearly reversed this statement.  And despite constant changes to 
that interface, RHEL keeps the changes from being pushed to customers 
within a long distro timespan, sometimes claiming both to be paying 
salaries to some of the kernel developers and that it is a big effort to 
work around the changes they are making...

> Of course this is unlike something like a BSD
> license which permits absorption and further development without any
> requirement to release their improvements.

Yes, even if Microsoft cleaned up their networking by copying BSD code 
we are all better off with everyone using safe, well tested, standards 
compliant code.  Apple finally produced something that could be a 
competitor to Windows with large chunks of it and again we are all 
better off for having choices instead of a monopoly.

>> For standalone programs the GPL doesn't necessarily have these evil 
>> effects.  For things that should be usable in cooperative efforts but 
>> can't because of license restrictions, it does.  There's no accounting 
>> for religions, though, and no doubt others believe the harm is justified 
>> by something or other.
> ----
> Seeing as how the entirety of the Linux kernel is GPL license and to
> change now would require a complete abandonment of the current kernel
> code and start from scratch, your point - however it might be made is
> entirely moot.

The linux license is not quite GPL and all it would take to fix it would 
be for Linus to restate his original assertion that module code is not 
part of the kernel.  Others might not agree, but he is the expert on the 
subject.

> The license chosen for Linux kernel development was of
> course Linus's and others who contribute code to the kernel are
> necessarily bound by the GPL license and of course, they can choose not
> to contribute code.

And there was a reason that the kernel license contains an exception.

> Of course the thing that makes your rich is also the thing that makes
> you poor and vice versa. The Linux kernel code, like all GPL license
> code, will always be available to continue, fork, examine, etc. and
> commercial enhancement of GPL code must necessarily be released in
> source as required...I feel rich.

I think opensolaris has potential as an alternative, especially with 
distributions like nexenta that have fairly current userland programs 
equivalent to ubuntu on top of it.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com