How can you get away with this? ("Free" Doesn't Mean "Restricted")

[tsg1zzn]

"Free" Doesn't Mean "Restricted"

"Free" doesn't mean "restricted", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "confined", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "restrained", does it?
Or does "free" mean "restricted"?
Yes, it does!

Do you use software because it's "free as in freedom"? If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right? Is it still "free as in freedom" if you can't do whatever you want with it?

Sure, you can do whatever the author wants with it, but can you do whatever you want with it?

Free means not restricted.
GPL is restrictive.
Linux is restricted.
Thus, Linux is not free as in freedom.

Sure, we can discuss at length whether protecting software from commercial misuse is beneficial (it probably is), but as long as the software is protected, it isn't free as in freedom, is it?

And now the prime question: How on earth does the Linux community get away with such claims that are not true? Or have they redefined free for their own purpose? (Sure, my program is "free" too, you can use it for anything you want as long as you want the same as I want.)

[aysiu]

Or have they redefined free for their own purpose? No, it seems you've redefined free for your own purposes.

Free does not mean you can do whatever you want with it.

The GPL is explicit about the types of freedoms its espousing and granting through the license:
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. I see nothing objectionable there, and I don't know where you're getting this idea that freedom means not restricted in any way.

Besides, there's no such thing, from a practical standpoint, as a software license that let's everybody do whatever she wants.

A) Let's say, for example, that we go with the GPL. The GPL restricts the developer from taking the code, modifying it and re-releasing it under a closed source license.
B) Then, let's say we go with a "you can do whatever you want" license. So the developer can then take the code, modify it, and re-release it under a closed source license.

So who's "you"?

In scenario A, "you" is the developer who can do whatever she wants. But by doing what she wants, she's not allowing users or other developers to do what they want (view the source of the newly modified software).

In scenario B, "you" is users and other future developers, who can view the source and continue to redistribute any modifications. The only one who's restricted in any way is the developer who wants to redistribute her modification with a non-GPL license.

So, either way, someone is going to be restricted. There is no "you can do whatever you want" where "you" is everybody.

[Ireclan]

...

0-0

Are you a troll, or do you have an issue that you'd actually like to DISCUSS...?

Sorry, but that's what immediately came to mind when reading your post. As for if Linux is truly "free" or not, I suppose the answer could be many things, as there are multiple definitions of the word "free". If you mean TOTAL freedom, then I suppose the answer is "no", Linux is not TOTALLY free. I really wouldn't have it "totally free", though, because that would allow others to take advantage of the hard work of the community behind the software in unacceptable ways.

[SunnyRabbiera]

the thing is that yes there are restricted drivers, kernals and other stuff in linux, but the cool thing is that you can take the linux core, modify it and make it your own.
Same with open source apps, programs and other junk.

ubuntu does allow for restricted stuff because it has no stance on limiting people to what they should or should not put on thier computer.
In my mind if a linux distro wants to include restrcted drivers to ensure better software and hardware support i say more power to them, linux has to catch up somehow and blind idealism can get in the way of that.

[srt4play]

I agree with aysiu.

and I think you're a troll.

[tsg1zzn]

No, it seems you've redefined free for your own purposes.

Free does not mean you can do whatever you want with it.
If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.


the thing is that yes there are restricted drivers, kernals and other stuff in linux, but the cool thing is that you can take the linux core, modify it and make it your own.That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

[yabbadabbadont]

Please don't feed the trolls... :p

[shen-an-doah]

Apparently you seem to be looking for an operating system/software iniative that promotes full-on anarchy.

In which case, you're full-on retarded.

[M$LOL]

OK, go use Windows then. That's really free.

[aysiu]

If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy If you can explain a way that a license could allow freedom for everybody to do anything she wants, then maybe you'd have a valid point to argue with.

You're just trading up one person's freedom for another's--the person who wants to change the licensing instead of the person who wants to keep the licensing as is.

This is part of the paradox of life. Governments can be restrictive in their laws just to be restrictive. But some of their restrictions actually protect freedom. For example, a traffic light restricts some cars from moving at a certain time, but it ultimately protects freedom of movement for all cars, since a lack of a traffic light at an intersection just causes gridlock so that no car can move.

[Adamant1988]

"Free" Doesn't Mean "Restricted"

"Free" doesn't mean "restricted", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "confined", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "restrained", does it?
Or does "free" mean "restricted"?
Yes, it does!

Do you use software because it's "free as in freedom"? If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right? Is it still "free as in freedom" if you can't do whatever you want with it?

Sure, you can do whatever the author wants with it, but can you do whatever you want with it?

Free means not restricted.
GPL is restrictive.
Linux is restricted.
Thus, Linux is not free as in freedom.

Sure, we can discuss at length whether protecting software from commercial misuse is beneficial (it probably is), but as long as the software is protected, it isn't free as in freedom, is it?

And now the prime question: How on earth does the Linux community get away with such claims that are not true? Or have they redefined free for their own purpose? (Sure, my program is "free" too, you can use it for anything you want as long as you want the same as I want.)

Ok, I completely understand where you're coming from as this has crossed my mind many many times. The GPL was designed as part of a social movement, this social movement has designated certain rights that users/consumers have with their software, and the GPL protects those rights in software under it.

Think of it this way: In America you have a Bill of Rights. These are the essential freedoms that the government CANNOT deny you, legally. So, by creating rights that you are guaranteed they have restricted the rights of the government to restrict you. Law of any kind will always restrict something, that's the very nature of it.

So, yes, the GPL was designed to enforce freedom, and it does so very well. Unfortunately, in the attempt to enforce the freedoms of the users, they have restricted the developers and companies. For instance, developers are completely unable to include certain softwares with their distribution of Linux legally (although some ignore it) and can be sued under the GPL if they choose to do so.

In that same breath though, you'll notice that the GPL was not designed to protect the rights of developers- It was designed to protect users. Much the same as the Bill of Rights restricts our government so that promised freedoms can be given to the citizens of the US.

I hope I was clear enough on that, I'm a bit tired so if I didn't make my point effectively please tell me and I'll try to explain.




That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

EDIT: Reading back through I found this post by you. It's the same as above. Someone had to be restricted to offer freedom to someone else. However, you might be interested in reading about the BSD license, which I believe has a more pure view of freedom (using your definition) since you can literally fork it into a proprietary piece of software if you so desire.

However, you CAN make your own version of the Linux kernel, you just have to share it. The same rules apply to you as anyone else in the GPL sandbox. Let's say I create a toy from legos. Now, I have to provide you the blocks to make that same structure, but that doesn't make the original any less mine.

I am curious exactly what you wanted to do that the GPL isn't allowing you to do though...

[EricWiz]

[QUOTE=tsg1zzn;2679811]If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

Dictionary.com unabridged:

Freedom #16
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

I think that fits linux. You don't own the library. You can't burn it or sell it. But you can read the books. That is a freedom. You are looking at an absolute. Life is not black and white, it is grey. Linux is free and you have the freedom to use it however you wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's freedoms.

It's kind of how freedom of speech and freedom of movement works right? You can say what you want but you can't lible. You can swing your arms but you can't swing them into someone's face.

[SunnyRabbiera]

If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

well to make linux your own if you really wanted to take it apart and recomplie it as your own, you have the right to do it.
You certainly cant do that with windows.
though you may want to brush up on computer programming.

[jariku]

Apparently you seem to be looking for an operating system/software iniative that promotes full-on anarchy.
Please remember that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. I see GNU/Linux as anarchist because it's available for every one and the development is democratic. But this thread should probably not turn into a political discussion.

As for the OP, just go with a BSD, if you think GPL is too restrictive. No need to rant online about it.

[Adamant1988]

[QUOTE=tsg1zzn;2679811]If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

Dictionary.com unabridged:

Freedom #16
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

I think that fits linux. You don't own the library. You can't burn it or sell it. But you can read the books. That is a freedom. You are looking at an absolute. Life is not black and white, it is grey. Linux is free and you have the freedom to use it however you wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's freedoms.

It's kind of how freedom of speech and freedom of movement works right? You can say what you want but you can't lible. You can swing your arms but you can't swing them into someone's face.

This is true, to an extent I believe. My understanding of it is that you're allowed to say what you want, write what you want, etc. but if whatever you write causes significant damage to a person, or a business you have abused your freedom and are subject to litigation.

Much the same as the government actually restricted Free Speech during Vietnam era America when people were distributing literature on how to avoid the draft. Those people were undermining the government war effort and were subject to legal penalties of such (I am not certain, but I think they may have even been accused of treason, perhaps someone with a more accurate knowledge of the time can clarify as I only know what I've read)

[forrestcupp]

Think of it this way: In America you have a Bill of Rights. These are the essential freedoms that the government CANNOT deny you, legally. So, by creating rights that you are guaranteed they have restricted the rights of the government to restrict you. Law of any kind will always restrict something, that's the very nature of it.

I was actually going to say something about that, too. In America, I have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble in public places, etc. However, I am not free to murder someone. I am restricted from murder. This restriction doesn't take away all of the freedom that I do have, though. I am still free, but with certain necessary restrictions. Freedom ceases to be freedom when you take someone else's freedom away.

The GPL isn't the only license, though. Not by far. If you want to create a program, and you want it to be totally free, just make it public domain.

If you don't like Linux, try out BSD.

[shen-an-doah]

Please remember that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. I see GNU/Linux as anarchist because it's available for every one and the development is democratic. But this thread should probably not turn into a political discussion.

I understand what you mean, but OSS isn't quite fully anarchic, as it were, as there's still leaders of sorts (anarchy literally means "without leaders"). The OP seems to want a system where he can do anything without regards to how it may effect others...

[Kvark]

I agree with tsg1zzn, BSD is a more free licence then GPL, if you want unrestricted freedom use BSD instead of Linux.

GPL is free in the libertarian way "You are free to do whatever you want except take away someone elses freedom," You get the source code and can do whatever you want except denying others the source code.

BSD is free in the anarchist way "You are free to do whatever you want, period. Even take away someone elses freedom.". You can do anything, even deny others the source code.

Obviously the BSD definition of freedom without restrictions is more free then the GPL definition which contains the restriction that freedom can't be taken away. On the other hand the GPL kind of restricted freedom lasts longer since it can't be taken away,

[starcraft.man]

If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

Your coming from an absolutist stand point of freedom as the unrestricted concept. That doesn't exist my friend, ANYWHERE. If everyone had that much freedom, life would be simple, and I could kill you outright without fear of any repercussions for it would be an anarchist state and no one would care at all for me doing it, in fact someone might take action against me after. I am not making a death threat against you, it is simply the clearest example against your logic. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom, nowhere does it exist. Even in nature, if you walk through a jungle you are restricted by Gravity and to my knowledge there is no way you can naturally break away from its control (not, I say both naturally to rule out airplanes, and even if I were to say artificial, gravity still pulls you down even when your in a plane, so that is not an escape).

Every civilization has had rules, to get along. Without them, we are just savages that would go around and kill everyone. At least I think so. We give up some minor freedoms to enjoy the greater freedoms. For example, I have the freedom to be or do whatever I want so long as my doing it doesn't kill/maime or otherwise hurt anyone else.

Linux allows you the freedom to install and remove whatever component you like, skin any theme on it, even go down into any program and modify it yourself if you so feel like it or start your own project. But with any other freedom in existence there are restrictions, the GPL is around at least from what I see, to prevent exploitation of the open source community by closed source developers (so they can't just take a app from us like k3b and repackage and theme it and sell it for 50 bucks back to us or others).

That's all I will say, I think thats enough. If you are a troll just looking for trouble, please go away... if you don't like Linux's freedom, your welcome to Apple's or Microsoft's...

[maniacmusician]

Please remember that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. I see GNU/Linux as anarchist because it's available for every one and the development is democratic. But this thread should probably not turn into a political discussion.

As for the OP, just go with a BSD, if you think GPL is too restrictive. No need to rant online about it.
as you said, it's a democratic process. It has rules and regulations. It's not anarchist. It has a stable system of collaborative working. So GNU/Linux is a working democracy.

[Adamant1988]

I agree with tsg1zzn, BSD is a more free licence then GPL, if you want unrestricted freedom use BSD instead of Linux.

GPL is free in the libertarian way "You are free to do whatever you want except take away someone elses freedom," You get the source code and can do whatever you want except denying others the source code.

BSD is free in the anarchist way "You are free to do whatever you want, period. Even take away someone elses freedom.". You can do anything, even deny others the source code.

Obviously the BSD definition of freedom without restrictions is more free then the GPL definition which contains the restriction that freedom can't be taken away. On the other hand the GPL kind of restricted freedom lasts longer since it can't be taken away,

It is more literally free, yes. However the BSD license allows for you to remove other's freedoms (Apple has every right to not contribute source back to the community, they just choose to play nice) which actually happened with the BSD tcp/ip stack, if I remember correctly. Wasn't the Windows 95 TCP/IP stack a hacked up version of BSD's?

[starcraft.man]

as you said, it's a democratic process. It has rules and regulations. It's not anarchist. It has a stable system of collaborative working. So GNU/Linux is a working democracy.

Very good point maniac, I hadn't thought of that. It's probably a better example of democracy then most others out there in the world :p

.... that made me feel just a bit sad >.>.

[brentoboy]

Besides, there's no such thing, from a practical standpoint, as a software license that let's everybody do whatever she wants.


Not to disagree with you, because you are always spot on with your posts, but the sqlite software package is under a truly free license... to quote their "license statement" http://www.sqlite.org/different.html

"Instead of a license, the SQLite source code offers a blessing:

May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.


And they require the same from all contributors to the source.
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

"The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights this code under copyright law."

---
the rant about the gpl is WAY overkill -- a software publisher / author can "offer" it for free or charge under whatever license he (or she) desires ... what right to users have to tell developers how to release thier stuff.

But, SQLite and the BSD stuff out there shows that, even though commercial "closed" apps might run off with your technology, the FOSS version doesn't die and the the source is still opened. the restrictions of the GPL might have been needed in order to get a critical mass of codebase for a decent complete system, but it is overkill anymore (In my own opinion).

[brentoboy]

Wasn't the Windows 95 TCP/IP stack a hacked up version of BSD's?

yep
all the way down to holding the "hosts" file (and other config files) in a folder named "etc"
they didnt even rename that stuff when they did the code-copy.

but, its legal, so go for it.

and honestly, they haven't taken away anyone else's rights in doing so. The original code -- the bsd code -- is still open, and no publisher can take open code, and remove someone else's right to it, even if they make use of it in a closed way.

the part that makes my eyebrow raise is when I hear stories about the owner of mepis getting letters from FSI telling him to start shelling out code for unmodified packages he distributes from ubuntu's repos. his complaint was .. the code is available from ubuntu, and I didn't change anything. Why should I have to hunt down all the code to all the GPL stuff that I offer in my distro ... and, he's right.

And, when I hear about a liveCD that used to show off compiz back in the days when it was new ... getting a cease and desist letter (from FSF, not even Linus) for including the proprietary kernel modules for nvidia and ATI drivers so that the 3D effects would work. They weren't compiling the proprietary modules directly into the kernel, so they weren't even violating the gpl, but they didn't want to hire a lawyer to fight with FSI, so they shut down. -- and an simple web search will show that Linus (the copyright holder) has said over and over ... I don't care if people include proprietary drivers, just don't tell me about the bugs you find in them.

In these cases, you have people who are trying to contribute to the FOSS community, and they are getting chased off and abused ... by the FOSS community. When the GPL is used against the people it is made to protect, we are getting a little bit stupid.

Especially when, all a company has to do in order to "close" some open code is to send out a development request to India for someone to write some code that does xyz for them... and if the guy on the other end steals it from an Open project, and swears up and down he wrote it from scratch, and then the company who purchased the code keeps it closed so no one ever know any different,... off they go with all that free open source code, and no one cares. But if one of our own tries to do something new and interesting... the whole free software foundation comes down on them with a hammer.

That's messed up.

To be totally honest, I'm not afraid of Microsoft suing me or the company I work for for infringing on their patents anywhere near as afraid I am of the FSF taking away my right to use some piece of free/foss software that isnt free according to their definition. Microsoft isnt interested in hunting down every violator, so long as they spread enough FUD to keep mainstream on thier end. But the GPL guys are crazy. If a license or package offends them, they push and push until every instance is eradicated.

I honestly wouldn't be shocked if things like adobe reader and flashplayer suddenly wont be offered with Linux anymore because of patents and closed code. Not because no one wants them, or because adobe wont give them away for free, but because they want to keep them closed.

---
I dont really agree with the original post -- gpl isnt restricting anyone's freedom. if all the gpl code in the world had never been written, no on would have any more freedom than they have today, so gpl doesnt take away freedom. But, I do agree with the sentiment that gpl is more restrictive than free. And the world would probably be a better place if most the GPL stuff started moving to the BSD license instead.

[karellen]

"Free" Doesn't Mean "Restricted"

"Free" doesn't mean "restricted", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "confined", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "restrained", does it?
Or does "free" mean "restricted"?
Yes, it does!

Do you use software because it's "free as in freedom"? If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right? Is it still "free as in freedom" if you can't do whatever you want with it?

Sure, you can do whatever the author wants with it, but can you do whatever you want with it?

Free means not restricted.
GPL is restrictive.
Linux is restricted.
Thus, Linux is not free as in freedom.

Sure, we can discuss at length whether protecting software from commercial misuse is beneficial (it probably is), but as long as the software is protected, it isn't free as in freedom, is it?

And now the prime question: How on earth does the Linux community get away with such claims that are not true? Or have they redefined free for their own purpose? (Sure, my program is "free" too, you can use it for anything you want as long as you want the same as I want.)

just for your general knowledge...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_%28philosophy%29#An_absence_of_restraint
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
that's because you wanted references...
I have no idea what are you trying to prove or to express. trolling it's very likely, though

[saulgoode]

... and an simple web search will show that Linus (the copyright holder) has said over and over ... I don't care if people include proprietary drivers, just don't tell me about the bugs you find in them.

Hmmm, all I seem able to find are comments (such as the following) which suggest Linus does care about proprietary drivers and considers them to be a violation of the kernel's copyright license. Perhaps you could provide some citations to back up your assertion?


I don't like binary modules. I refuse to support them,and if it turns out that the module was written using Linux code, and just for Linux, I think that's a _clear_ copyright violation, and that binary module is obviously a license violation.


There is nothing in the kernel license that allows modules to be non-GPLd.

The only thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and in particular the "derived work" issue.


... I do consider a module written for Linux and using kernel infrastructures to get its work done, even if not actually copying any existing Linux code, to be a derived work by default. You'd have to have a strong case to not consider your code a derived work.


I personally consider anything a "derived work" that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux (i.e., it is not acceptable to make a small piece of GPL-code as a hook for the larger piece), as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs "help" from the main kernel.

Similarly, I consider anything that has intimate knowledge about kernel internals to be a derived work.

[joriad]

If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

If you can tell me one instance of freedom with no restrictions what so ever, I will agree with your philosophy.

[jcconnor]

See, I think that freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, and nothin's worth nothin' but it's free!!

Kris

[joriad]

See, I think that freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, and nothin's worth nothin' but it's free!!

Kris

That would make a great song. You should put that on vinyl right now.

[brentoboy]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6061491.html


Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has argued that some proprietary modules are permissible because they're not derived from the Linux kernel, but were originally designed to work with other operating systems. If they had originated from the kernel, that would require them to be covered by the GPL.

"Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew file system module: a standard file system that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place," Torvalds wrote in a 2003 mailing list posting. "Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so."

The FSF sharply disagrees. "If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms...you couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it, whether dynamically or statically," FSF attorney Eben Moglen said in a January interview.


you certainly cant say that the nvidia and ati drivers originate on linux kernel code...


or, from... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061215-8428.html


Characterizing the entire idea as "shortsighted" and "stupid," Linus Torvalds responded with relatively well-reasoned (and characteristically acerbic) criticisms, pointing out that an outright ban on binary drivers would simply compel companies to move their binary driver code into userspace where it isn't subject to the limitation. Torvalds also compares a binary driver ban to DRM, arguing that it would constitute an unreasonable limitation on what people can do with the Linux kernel. "I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn well please. Fair use, man," wrote Torvalds. "But it should go the other way too: we should not try to assert our copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't derived from ours, or assert our technical measures that keep people from combining things their way."

Although Torvalds refused to be the one to merge the code into the kernel, he suggests that the developers "use somebody else ... to push [their] political agendas," and has indicated that he will not prevent the binary module ban if the other kernel developers can build a consensus on the issue amongst major Linux distributors.


I could go on, that just the first two that looked interesting on the first page of a google search for "linus Torvalds gpl nvidia proprietary driver"

I completely agree that linus wants his (and other contributor's) code to be protected from being redistributed in a closed way, but, even your quotes all lead to the "derived works" that are originaly his code.

He doesnt care if you want to modprobe a proprietary driver. And, as much as FSF wants it all out, they cant say much unless the proprietary driver is linked at compile time, which, its not.

He wants his code protected, but he doesnt have any problem at all with people writing thier own stuff and using it in whatever way they want.

[brentoboy]

Originally Posted by Linus Torvalds:
I don't like binary modules. I refuse to support them,and if it turns out that the module was written using Linux code, and just for Linux, I think that's a _clear_ copyright violation, and that binary module is obviously a license violation.


that's exactly what I said "just dont tell me about the bugs"

and he says "That" Binary module ... meanin ghte one written using linux code just for linux ... is a violation




Originally Posted by Linus Torvalds:
There is nothing in the kernel license that allows modules to be non-GPLd.

The only thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and in particular the "derived work" issue.

That one says that copyright law allows for non-GPL modules.
the GPL only attacks "derived works" not someones own works. (Derived works being things that start with the original and work from it, not things that work "with" it)



Originally Posted by Linus Torvalds:
... I do consider a module written for Linux and using kernel infrastructures to get its work done, even if not actually copying any existing Linux code, to be a derived work by default. You'd have to have a strong case to not consider your code a derived work.

Ok, but Nvidia and ATI's drivers (and many other firmware binaries and things) have a pretty strong case that they are not originated from linux code.




Originally Posted by Linus Torvalds
I personally consider anything a "derived work" that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux (i.e., it is not acceptable to make a small piece of GPL-code as a hook for the larger piece), as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs "help" from the main kernel.

None of these drivers I have brought up (so far as I am aware) have little hooks that they compile into the main kernel in order to make use of linux's code any more than userspace does. you take a gpl compliant kernel and modprobe in a compatible nvidia driver, and nvidia just does its own thing. no special "gpl" code from nvidia to compile into the kernel in order to make their driver better.


these are all nice quotes but they really come down to the sort of project where someone builds a linux "appliance" around a proprietart wireless chipset, and wants to rework the kernel to make use of their device without giving away source to their wireless chip driver...scenarios like that where 90% of what makes thier product function is the Linux Kernel's code. They want to run with the free stuff but dont want to follow suit.

Big graphics card companies are not in that boat at all. They make their stuff for windows, and we, the users are the ones who benefit from a working 3D driver. ATI and Nvidia would probably be prefectly happy to say "if you dont want a driver, fine: have a nice day" -- but users, their customers, ask them to support linux, so they put up with the GPL stuff as best they can without giving away what they consider to be their investment into thier company.

Whether they are right or not ... that is for them to decide (not us, or richard stallman) but, so long as they do it legally, whats the big deal?

[jariku]

The OP seems to want a system where he can do anything without regards to how it may effect others...
This still isn't anarchy. This, what you're referring to, is chaos. Anarchy doesn't end at "do what thou wilt" (yes, I know where the quote is from), it is about community and deciding things as peers. In that sense, I feel that the Open Source movement is anarchist in nature.

[jariku]

GPL is free in the libertarian way "You are free to do whatever you want except take away someone elses freedom," You get the source code and can do whatever you want except denying others the source code.

BSD is free in the anarchist way "You are free to do whatever you want, period. Even take away someone elses freedom.". You can do anything, even deny others the source code.
Could you please explain to me how it is "anarchist" to take away someone's freedom?

[jariku]

as you said, it's a democratic process. It has rules and regulations. It's not anarchist. It has a stable system of collaborative working. So GNU/Linux is a working democracy.
And anarchism is complete democracy.

[juxtaposed]

Without them, we are just savages that would go around and kill everyone.

Anyone who wants to kill someone will do it. They won't care about the law.

However, authority does enable killing (wars, etc).


(so they can't just take a app from us like k3b and repackage and theme it and sell it for 50 bucks back to us or others).

They can do that under the GPL. They just need to give out the source code.


It has rules and regulations.

But there is no central authority. In the windows world, microsoft could control what goes on with their OS. They do that.

In the linux world, noone can do that. Sure, there are projects, with rules and such, but you can fork it and do whatever you want with it, aslong as you let others do what they want with it.

To the original poster, don't be bothered by the people calling you a troll. You made a good point.


And anarchism is complete democracy.

=D

[jariku]

And anarchism is complete democracy.
=D

Please explain what is so funny about this sentence. In parliamentary democracy you select someone from your peers to make the decisions for you and/or you vote on whether a decision made by your representative will be accepted or not. In anarchism you skip the bit where you select someone to make the decisions for you and you make the decisions among your peers.

Trough this logic, I find anarchism to be more democratic than parliamentary/representative democracy.

(Should these posts about anarchism be split in to a thread of it's own?)

[juxtaposed]

Please explain what is so funny about this sentence.

Nothing. I'm an anarchist and I aggreed with you.

I've always seen =D as being very hapy, :) as being happy, and XD as laughing.

[jariku]

Nothing. I'm an anarchist and I aggreed with you.

I've always seen =D as being very hapy, :) as being happy, and XD as laughing.

Oh, ok. I'm sorry for jumping on you like that. :KS

[Arisna]

*Doesn't read thread*

Okay, switch to Free/Open/Net/DragonFly BSD.

[starcraft.man]

Anyone who wants to kill someone will do it. They won't care about the law.

However, authority does enable killing (wars, etc).

Well, I'd have to disagree with you there, the average person does not go around killing people. They don't mostly for good reason, they know that the "people" are represented by the police and the courts and that if they inflict harm on someone else they will (in most cases) be found out, tried and convicted. I've always thought that humans were to a great extent very selfish to a certain extent. Consider that when your a little child, if you can get away with something you usually tried to do it (even if it wasn't the smartest thing, like staying out 2 extra hours after your curfew only to get grounded for a month). So yes, usually there has to be a deterrent to prevent action, else everyone would do whatever they wanted because they believe (like when you were a child) that you could get away with it.

I'd also have to disagree with authority enabling killing. That simply isn't the case... wars and fights would occur, whether or not there was an authority figure at the top of each side or not. Violence for all intents and purposes, seems to be one of man kinds favourite solutions, whether he is alone or in a mob. It seems to matter little. It's written all across history. People have usually crowded around a leader or authority because they didn't want to make the tough decisions themselves and just wanted to follow someone elses lead, or as is often the case they are brainwashed/misinformed as a collective group. However, I'd like to point out that there doesn't need to be a charismatic leader to manipulate/brainwash a group. There are plenty of groups across history that have simply deluded themselves into believing rubbish that simply wasn't true (the earth being round for example).




They can do that under the GPL. They just need to give out the source code.

Your right there, my mistake. I have to read the GPL more closely, working on that. However, in any case, it would be folly for any company to take an open project sell it and then release the source for people to realize its a packaged version of a free OSS.

Oh and Anarchy is certainly not the most complete form of democracy. That would have been the greek system with direct voting where every man that was deemed a citizen of the given state/city/province, was given a vote in what action would be taken. This is actually somewhat feasible today (certainly more so than in the greek days) though its one failing it seems was that it did not recognize young men or any women for that matter. We of course would have to do so, anyone above 18 of course :).

[saulgoode]

Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has argued that some proprietary modules are permissible because they're not derived from the Linux kernel, but were originally designed to work with other operating systems. If they had originated from the kernel, that would require them to be covered by the GPL.

"Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew file system module: a standard file system that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place," Torvalds wrote in a 2003 mailing list posting. "Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so."

The FSF sharply disagrees. "If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms...you couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it, whether dynamically or statically," FSF attorney Eben Moglen said in a January interview.

you certainly cant say that the nvidia and ati drivers originate on linux kernel code...

I can say that. The fact that NVidia has had to produce new versions of their Linux drivers with each of the kernel's 2.6.17, 2.6.18, and 2.6.19 releases very much suggests that they are intimately interfacing with the kernel and might very well be considered a "derived work". For further insight in Linus' view of "derived work", consider the following quote (from http://www.atomicrocketturtle.com/kernels/2.6/COPYING.modules):


In the binary kernel module case, a bug in the code corrupts random data
structures, or accesses kernel internals without holding the proper locks,
or does a million other things wrong, BECAUSE A KERNEL MODULE IS VERY
INTIMATELY LINKED WITH THE KERNEL.

A kernel module is _not_ a separate work, and can in _no_ way be seen as
"part of the hardware". It's very much a part of the _kernel_. And the
kernel developers require that such code be GPL'd so that it can be fixed,
or if there's a valid argument that it's not a derived work and not GPL'd,
then the kernel developers who have to support the end result mess most
definitely do need to know about the taint.

The developer in charge of of kernel modules, Greg Kroah-Harman (http://www.kroah.com/log/) (please read his opinion, they express the danger of drivers infringing on GPL licenses very well), has expressed in no uncertain terms that he considers them to be a violation of the authors' copyright license. Other kernel contributors, such as Andrew Morton (who has contributed more lines of code to the kernel than Linus) and Alan Cox, have expressed similar sentiments. None of the major kernel developers -- including Linus Torvalds -- have stated that they "don't care about proprietary drivers"


or, from... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061215-8428.html

Characterizing the entire idea as "shortsighted" and "stupid," Linus Torvalds responded with relatively well-reasoned (and characteristically acerbic) criticisms, pointing out that an outright ban on binary drivers would simply compel companies to move their binary driver code into userspace where it isn't subject to the limitation. Torvalds also compares a binary driver ban to DRM, arguing that it would constitute an unreasonable limitation on what people can do with the Linux kernel. "I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn well please. Fair use, man," wrote Torvalds. "But it should go the other way too: we should not try to assert our copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't derived from ours, or assert our technical measures that keep people from combining things their way."

Although Torvalds refused to be the one to merge the code into the kernel, he suggests that the developers "use somebody else ... to push [their] political agendas," and has indicated that he will not prevent the binary module ban if the other kernel developers can build a consensus on the issue amongst major Linux distributors.

What Linus is speaking to in that citation is whether the kernel should attempt to enforce their copyrights. His objection is not to claiming the right to the work they have authored, but to implementing pre-emptive measures to prevent people from violating those copyrights (hence the comparison to DRM).


I completely agree that linus wants his (and other contributor's) code to be protected from being redistributed in a closed way, but, even your quotes all lead to the "derived works" that are originaly his code.

He doesnt care if you want to modprobe a proprietary driver. And, as much as FSF wants it all out, they cant say much unless the proprietary driver is linked at compile time, which, its not.

Again, I believe you are misrepresenting Linus' opinion on this matter (from http://www.gcom.com/documents/whitepapers/linux_gnu_license.html?doc_library):

Note that there is no such thing as "dynamically link into the kernel"
in Linux. Instead there are "loadable modules".

Now the above may strike some people as nit-picking, but there is one
rather important thing about loadable modules: they can _not_ link
themselves against any random kernel routine. And the routines they
_can_ link against are routines that I consider to be "logically
independent" of the kernel implementation.

The above does not sound like Linus is making any distinction between run-time linking and pre-compiled.


He wants his code protected, but he doesnt have any problem at all with people writing thier own stuff and using it in whatever way they want.

And here is where I say you misrepresent his opinion -- he may not wish to pursue enforcing his copyrights, but that is not the same as him not caring that they be respected. You suggested that the FSF was "getting a little bit stupid" in trying to protect the copyrights of kernel developers -- specifically Linus', though he is not the only copyright holder for the kernel; others who hold Linux copyrights are well within their rights to expect them to be respected (and the FSF is amongst those holding copyrights on parts of the kernel).

If you wish to object to the copyrights of the kernel developers, then do so. If you wish to argue that kernel modules fall under the Fair Use clause of copyrights, by all means do so. But you should not be trying to convince people that Linus "does not care" about proprietary kernel modules; there is a long history which supports the precise opposite.

[Rhox]

Its not super "free" but it and its derivatives are "free" in a more meaningful way.

[brentoboy]

he may not wish to pursue enforcing his copyrights

If you wish to object to the copyrights of the kernel developers, then do so.

If you wish to argue that kernel modules fall under the Fair Use clause of copyrights, by all means do so.

But you should not be trying to convince people that Linus "does not care" about proprietary kernel modules;

there is a long history which supports the precise opposite.

You go ahead and believe your way, I'll be happy with mine, but it seems to me that sooner or later, linus will be the most misquoted man in the world -- (so long as you don't include people misquoting the bible)

Maybe I don't speak for him (in fact, i'm sure I don't) but neither do you. You asked for references to my opinion, I provided them.

[jariku]

Oh and Anarchy is certainly not the most complete form of democracy. That would have been the greek system with direct voting where every man that was deemed a citizen of the given state/city/province, was given a vote in what action would be taken. This is actually somewhat feasible today (certainly more so than in the greek days) though its one failing it seems was that it did not recognize young men or any women for that matter. We of course would have to do so, anyone above 18 of course :).

I don't really see how excluding people from the decision making process is more democratic than letting everyone in.

[tsg1zzn]

I ask for a definition of freedom which says it's still freedom when it's restricted, and someone posts links to dictionaries which shows the exact opposite. :confused:


*Doesn't read thread*

Okay, switch to Free/Open/Net/DragonFly BSD.

I don't want a free license, I want a OS which actually is what it is promoted as.

I'm FOR restrictions. Restrictions are good, especially the GPL ones. Linux is not free. It's restricted to protect your rights. Which is good.

So why on earth promote it as something as something it isn't, and
How come no one notices?


Free does not mean you can do whatever you want with it.So why does everyone say so? (Red added.)

It [Linux] is however free in regards to you doing whatever the hack you want with it after you get the software.
...
Free in this case refers to the right granted to you by the author(s) to do anything you want with it/to it
after you have acquired a copy.

At the core of the Ubuntu Philosophy are these core philosophical ideals:
1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
...
Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce and included in our distribution.

The Ubuntu community is built on the premise that software should be available free of charge, and that people should have the freedom to customize and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

[saulgoode]

Linux users are free to do with it whatever they wish. Once a user engages in providing modified copies of Linux publicly, he ceases to be a "user" and becomes a "distributor". Users are completely free to do what they wish. Distributors must abide by the appropriate copyright licenses.

Therein lies the difference from "non-Free" licenses. Most proprietary software goes beyond relying on copyright protection and demand that their end users agree to a more restrictive license (the EULA). EULAs place restrictions on how the software can be used and remove certain rights granted by copyright law with regard to archiving and Fair Use.

Even though Free Software is not completely unencumbered, it is fair to give it the name "Free Software" because it is free of any restrictions other than normal copyright. Free Software's copyright license does place restrictions on distribution of copies (that is what copyrights are, the "rights to copy"), but the goal of those restrictions is that the copies offer the same freedom of usage as the original.

In my opinion, Free Software is not "getting away with" anything, the term "Free Software" is a reasonably accurate description of its nature.

[az]

I don't want a free license, I want a OS which actually is what it is promoted as.

I'm FOR restrictions. Restrictions are good, especially the GPL ones. Linux is not free. It's restricted to protect your rights. Which is good.

So why on earth promote it as something as something it isn't, and
How come no one notices?

So why does everyone say so? (Red added.)

Ah! A properly phrased question.

As already stated, this is covered in the text of the GPL. The "free" in free-libre open-source software refers to software freedom. Public domain is not the best way to ensure your freedoms are protected.

It's all about the community. Public domain software bends at 90 degree angles. FLOSS forks. That's why the GPL is a more popular software licence for free software. People feel more comfortable dealing with a project for whom there is no advantage. In public domain/bsd/wtfpl licenced software, the community is succeptible to having the project pack up and leave more so than with GPLed software.

The GPL is a commitment to software freedom. While other licences do not prohibit the software from being free, (being DFSG-compatible) it can foster less confidence in the community which surrounds it.

Is it false to say that the GPL is free when it has more restrictions/conditions than a PD or BSD licence? That depends on what you call "free". Do I want software that is free in the PD sense? No. I don't.

[elints]

I have the freedom to fly but I can't flap my arms fast enough.

Microsoft has the freedom to write superb software but haven't. I guess thats because they are really a marketing company guided by lawyers. When the competition looks like they will soar high, MS doesn't try to soar higher but would rather keep the competition from even taking off. Excellence will never manifest itself in that "organization".:(

[Adamant1988]

I have the freedom to fly but I can't flap my arms fast enough.

Microsoft has the freedom to write superb software but haven't. I guess thats because they are really a marketing company guided by lawyers. When the competition looks like they will soar high, MS doesn't try to soar higher but would rather keep the competition from even taking off. Excellence will never manifest itself in that "organization".:(
Microsoft is a wonderful software company, really. What they are not wonderful at is Operating Systems. Eventually, when the OS gold-mine is dried up for them, Microsoft will do what it has always been best at: Applications.

[karellen]

I don't know about the others but I feel this discussion is without meaning or practical purpose :confused:

[koenn]

I don't know about the others but I feel this discussion is without meaning or practical purpose :confused:
I fully agree.

[starcraft.man]

I don't know about the others but I feel this discussion is without meaning or practical purpose :confused:

I have to agree with Karellen (again :p), this really hasn't done anything and seems more to have devolved into trivial arguments about absolute freedom, anarchy and its opposite order(I might have helped it get there, I like philosophy :D). While thats interesting, its really not getting anywhere.The bottom line to all of this, is that if you think the GPL/Linux is too restrictive for you and you don't think it promotes freedom, go get BSD. You can do anything you want and don't have to feel like we are controlling you.

Have a nice day, you too Karellen :).

[karellen]

I have to agree with Karellen (again :p), this really hasn't done anything and seems more to have devolved into trivial arguments about absolute freedom, anarchy and its opposite order(I might have helped it get there, I like philosophy :D). While thats interesting, its really not getting anywhere.The bottom line to all of this, is that if you think the GPL/Linux is too restrictive for you and you don't think it promotes freedom, go get BSD. You can do anything you want and don't have to feel like we are controlling you.

Have a nice day, you too Karellen :).

the same for you :)
(and yes, philosophy is interesting ;) )

[Jhongy]

WHAT is not free about Linux?

WHAT is 'cheating the community'?

WHAT is unclear about the GPL? It's totally human-readable by anyone, not just lawyers.


Damnit, you're free to take Ubuntu in its entirety, change its name, box it, and sell it for a fortune... WHAT is not free about that?

The only thing the GPL does that is restrictive is in ENFORCING your freedom! So, if you do decide to sell Ubuntu, you have to empower the end users to also be able to modify or sell it.

It's not only free; it's ENFORCED as free -- it's *strictly free*!

And you don't get much freer than that!

[foresth]

Your freedom ends where the freedom of the other begins. That's in democracy.

With FREE software, user's freedom ends where the freedom of author begins.

You cannot have the absolute freedom because you do not live here alone.

[karellen]

WHAT is not free about Linux?

WHAT is 'cheating the community'?

WHAT is unclear about the GPL? It's totally human-readable by anyone, not just lawyers.


Damnit, you're free to take Ubuntu in its entirety, change its name, box it, and sell it for a fortune... WHAT is not free about that?

The only thing the GPL does that is restrictive is in ENFORCING your freedom! So, if you do decide to sell Ubuntu, you have to empower the end users to also be able to modify or sell it.

It's not only free; it's ENFORCED as free -- it's *strictly free*!

And you don't get much freer than that!

you took the words out of my mouth...:)

[juxtaposed]

the average person does not go around killing people.

Because they know killing is wrong.


they know that the "people" are represented by the police and the courts

Can't say I agree with that.


when your a little child, if you can get away with something you usually tried to do it (even if it wasn't the smartest thing, like staying out 2 extra hours after your curfew only to get grounded for a month).

There is a difference between staying out after your curfew and inflicting harm upon others (besides the severity).

Killing someone else is forcing your will onto them. Your will is that they die.

Staying out after curfew is acting on your own will, your will is that you stay longer after your curfew.


I'd also have to disagree with authority enabling killing. That simply isn't the case... wars and fights would occur, whether or not there was an authority figure at the top of each side or not. Violence for all intents and purposes, seems to be one of man kinds favourite solutions, whether he is alone or in a mob. It seems to matter little. It's written all across history. People have usually crowded around a leader or authority because they didn't want to make the tough decisions themselves and just wanted to follow someone elses lead, or as is often the case they are brainwashed/misinformed as a collective group. However, I'd like to point out that there doesn't need to be a charismatic leader to manipulate/brainwash a group. There are plenty of groups across history that have simply deluded themselves into believing rubbish that simply wasn't true (the earth being round for example).

I know killing and wars would go on without authority, but not as many.

The major reasons for wars and killing and violence are: Countries, Race, Religon, and Idealogy. ("For the glory of my country/religon/race/idealogy! Ill kill you because of your inferiour country/religon/race/idealogy!").



I like philosophy

Me too :D

[Adamant1988]

The major reasons for wars and killing and violence are: Countries, Race, Religon, and Idealogy. ("For the glory of my country/religon/race/idealogy! Ill kill you because of your inferiour country/religon/race/idealogy!").

OT:
Actually, Religion has been classed as the single largest catalyst of war and violence today. Followed by land disputes (Palestine?) and even then many of those issues can be traced to the point where they have religious roots. Religious wars are often not a matter of pride, but because the aggressor in the conflict often believes it is their duty in the name of their god to perform certain actions. For instance, certain cultures were subject to war and abuse from Christianity because they did things that were against Christian ethics/guidelines. Religious wars are many times not a matter of "My god is better than yours" it is a matter of "My god told me to do this, because you're heathens"


IF you want to debate this with me I would be more than glad to, but we'll have to do so in private or in the backyard.

[maniacmusician]

Agreed, it's not even a contest. Religion is by far the largest catalyst of violence in the world. Even more so than genocide. Race may be a close second (related to things like genocide). Ideology doesn't spark that much violence, really. People would like to think that they cared enough about their ideology to start wars over them, but no one really does. Countries/politicis is more of a catalyst than ideologies are.

[juxtaposed]

Actually, Religion has been classed as the single largest catalyst of war and violence today. Followed by land disputes (Palestine?) and even then many of those issues can be traced to the point where they have religious roots.

I certainly don't think land disputes are second to religon. World War II happened because of nationality (and to a lesser extent, race). WWII was the germans believing their country was the best and deserved more land, power, money, glory, etc.


Religious wars are many times not a matter of "My god is better than yours" it is a matter of "My god told me to do this, because you're heathens"

It's "My religon is right, your religon is wrong, I am good, you are bad, join us or you are evil" which is rooted in "my religon is the best".


Ideology doesn't spark that much violence, really.

The world almost went to nuclear war over idealogy...

[Adamant1988]

I certainly don't think land disputes are second to religon. World War II happened because of nationality (and to a lesser extent, race). WWII was the germans believing their country was the best and deserved more land, power, money, glory, etc.

Actually, a lot of pre-WW II was Hitler land-grabbing if I remember correctly, using his military might to intimidate a region that wanted to avoid another world war. You're right though, World War II was fought for a differing reason for each and every country, and Hitler had multiple reasons for fighting. It is however, important, that we do not call the genocide of the Jewish peoples World War II simply because it happened at the time.




It's "My religon is right, your religon is wrong, I am good, you are bad, join us or you are evil" which is rooted in "my religon is the best".

To an extent this is true, but most times people will not say "Mine is best", they'll say: "This religious document that I hold dear says that what you're doing is immoral and wrong, and that the punishment for this is death"



The world almost went to nuclear war over idealogy...

The operative word in this statement being ALMOST. This is like saying that women are a major cause of fist-fights amongst males simply because they get in arguments over them.

[prizrak]

If you can point to any dictionary which shows that freedom is freedom if it's limited, then I'll be very happy.

That's exactly what I can't. There we have it again. How can the linux community get away with it?

How are you restricted? You can introduce any changes you want into it. The ONLY restriction is distribution. If you want to distribute what you made and it was based on the GPL you have to provide the source. If you don't like that go look at BSD. There is no such thing as total freedom. Even in anarchy you are free to do what you want as long as you do not infringe on other people's right to do the same.

[juxtaposed]

It is however, important, that we do not call the genocide of the Jewish peoples World War II simply because it happened at the time.

It was more then just jews that were killed in the holocaust, but yes, you're right.


The operative word in this statement being ALMOST. This is like saying that women are a major cause of fist-fights amongst males simply because they get in arguments over them.

I don't think idealogy is the #1 thing that people fight over. If it had caused a nuclear war I might think so, but it didn't so it's not #1, but it's still up there on the things people fight over.


To an extent this is true, but most times people will not say "Mine is best", they'll say: "This religious document that I hold dear says that what you're doing is immoral and wrong, and that the punishment for this is death"

But that is still rooted in the "mine is best" thing. They must think that their religon is the best/true (with no other one even comparing a little) to kill over it.