Is RedHat deliberately CRIPPLING Linux?

[TanisHalfElven]

who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.

 

[Nothinman]

i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did.

FC didn't block anything, AFAIK it was a bug that slipped through and was fixed after release. And if people like gregkh get their way proprietary drivers will be impossible eventually so RH won't have a choice in the matter.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did.

FC didn't block anything, AFAIK it was a bug that slipped through and was fixed after release. And if people like gregkh get their way proprietary drivers will be impossible eventually so RH won't have a choice in the matter.

What're they going to do that redhat can't undo?

 

[Nothinman]

What're they going to do that redhat can't undo?

Technically there's nothing that RH can't undo, but how much manpower is RH willing to spend undoing them and what are the legalities of it? A function in the kernel that's made available to external modules has to be exported via an EXPORT macro, but there's also an EXPORT_GPL macro that will only work if the license in the module is GPL or compatible. And little by little gregkh and others are replacing old EXPORTs with EXPORT_GPLs. And AFAIK RH already doesn't officially support any non-GPL'd drivers so it's not that big of a stretch for them.

 

[kamper]

So at that point, if vendors started writing their modules to lie about being GPLed, then there'd be a more clear-cut legal case against them? Looks like it's gonna get kind of interesting and I can't wait to see what happens in the video chip area.

 

[Nothinman]

From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.

btw, about time you changed that avitar back

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.

i only put those in to soften the argument and to provide a fun point. it was never meant to be the main topic in any post.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.

i only put those in to soften the argument and to provide a fun point. it was never meant to be the main topic in any post.

this is anandtech! anything is open for arguement!

anyway, gotcha. i'm surprised this thread wasn't locked already anyway.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Nothinman
From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.

Not sure what you mean.

For a person, for their own use, to link against kernel. Sure you can do whatever you want. You can embed microsoft code in it or anything like that. It's perfectly legal.

The only problems happen when you distribute software... Nvidia kernel driver, Atheros binary blob, etc etc, are technically breaking the GPL since they are distributed under a incompatable license. Very obviously it's something that is ment to be used with Linux. It can only be used with linux and nothing else. But it's up to the copyright holders to enforce this, and if they don't.. then all bets are off. Pretty much.

Personally I am going to try out going binary-blob free. I am switching to the Intel platform and am going to use the GMA950 video chipset. Going to see how that goes. I am tired of the nvidia drivers borking my system and I want a desktop system that does sleep as well as my laptop does. But I don't know how well it will work out for me application-wise. If not a fanless 6600gt is only 139 bucks away. :/

 

[Nothinman]

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.

Even runtime modules get some copies of inline functions and the like included in their object code.

btw, about time you changed that avitar back

I never changed my avatar =)

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I never changed my avatar =)

That was n0cmonkey I think.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.

Even runtime modules get some copies of inline functions and the like included in their object code.

btw, about time you changed that avitar back

I never changed my avatar =)

Sure, but there are lots of runtime excpetions to GPL licenses, this is one place where there should be one, but the FSF is not acting in the best interests of users here (IMHO).

As for the avatar, oops, that was n0cmonkey (sorry!)

Bill

 

[Nothinman]

Sure, but there are lots of runtime excpetions to GPL licenses, this is one place where there should be one, but the FSF is not acting in the best interests of users here (IMHO).

It's not the FSF, for the license to be changed all of the copyright holders on the linux kernel would have to agree and that will never happen.

As for the avatar, oops, that was n0cmonkey (sorry!)

I know, I just thought it was funny. =)

 

[hooflung]

Close this thread and ban the OP. What a bunch of rubbish.