Matthew Parry wrote:
>
> I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is
> what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing
> proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this
> effectively the same as linking against a library?
Err.
a) The free kernel links against a free driver
or
b) A non-free driver links against the free Kernel.
Compared with the KDE debacle, Linux would be the library
and the driver would be the program. For me it looks like the
situation is exactly the other way round.
Linus didn't put the whole kernel under the GPL. I'm sure that
there is no restriction to binary-only-commercial drivers.
> And even if it isn't, what are we going to do if proprietary
> drivers become common? We'll have a main dist that is useless
> on a lot of computers.
Maybe we're not able to distribute them. So what? People should
instead buy hardware for which the specs are available.
> I think Debian should take a stand against proprietary drivers
> and only distribute kernels with the proprietary driver code
> removed. I mean people were worried about the proprietary QT
Define "proprietary driver code".
> becoming a standard on Linux - I think a much more worying
> prospect for Linux (and the free software community as a
> whole) is having Linux boxes that won't function *at all*
> without proprietary drivers!
This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the
case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer
holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free
drivers.
Regards,
Joey
--
Experience is a useful thing. Unfortunately it is only acquired
just after one could have used it.
