simosx
February 28th, 2016, 02:44 PM
Στα σχόλια της ανάρτησης για το Ubuntu + ZFS (https://plus.google.com/+SilviuStahie/posts/Vi28dpkbxm8) βλέπουμε το σχόλιο του Rodney Dawes για το ζήτημα:
Redistribution is the same whether they are installed by default or available to install. They are still being redistributed in either case. If it is legal for something to be redistributed, then it is legal to install it by default. The fact is that Ubuntu as a whole is not GPL. It is a collection of software, some of which is GPL, and much of which is not GPL. That it installs some GPL software by default, does not make all the software installed, to b GPL.
The ZFS modules are not shipped as part of the linux source or binary packages. it is shipped as separate source and binary packages from linux.
NVidia/fglrx/flash not being installed by default in Ubuntu has nothing to do with redistribution rights of the binaries. They are withheld from the default install, because they are not open source. It is an intentional decision that the default installation as performed by an ISO download gives an open source install by default. The binary drivers and flash, however, may be selected for install from the network, directly within the installer process. The NVidia drivers are also shipped pre-installed by OEMs on their hardware which requires those drivers to be usable. Likewise, every Android based phone in existence, ships multiple proprietary drivers by default. Why is the SFC not attacking Google and every phone manufacturer on the planet? For what purpose is there in attacking Ubuntu, for shipping a package which is open source, but not GPL, as part of a pre-installed solution?
If the SFC does believe that shipping the ZFS module binary installed by default is somehow a violation of the GPL and illegal, then surely the SFC must already have filed legal action against Google and every device manufacturer on the planet which ships an Android device, to force them to provide GPLv2 source code for all of the binary drivers in use on their devices.
Redistribution is the same whether they are installed by default or available to install. They are still being redistributed in either case. If it is legal for something to be redistributed, then it is legal to install it by default. The fact is that Ubuntu as a whole is not GPL. It is a collection of software, some of which is GPL, and much of which is not GPL. That it installs some GPL software by default, does not make all the software installed, to b GPL.
The ZFS modules are not shipped as part of the linux source or binary packages. it is shipped as separate source and binary packages from linux.
NVidia/fglrx/flash not being installed by default in Ubuntu has nothing to do with redistribution rights of the binaries. They are withheld from the default install, because they are not open source. It is an intentional decision that the default installation as performed by an ISO download gives an open source install by default. The binary drivers and flash, however, may be selected for install from the network, directly within the installer process. The NVidia drivers are also shipped pre-installed by OEMs on their hardware which requires those drivers to be usable. Likewise, every Android based phone in existence, ships multiple proprietary drivers by default. Why is the SFC not attacking Google and every phone manufacturer on the planet? For what purpose is there in attacking Ubuntu, for shipping a package which is open source, but not GPL, as part of a pre-installed solution?
If the SFC does believe that shipping the ZFS module binary installed by default is somehow a violation of the GPL and illegal, then surely the SFC must already have filed legal action against Google and every device manufacturer on the planet which ships an Android device, to force them to provide GPLv2 source code for all of the binary drivers in use on their devices.