Jeroen Massar wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
What strike me, among many things wrong and unreal here is the specific
part as well:
"Marvell is not in a position to open their wireless firmware as it is
currently dependent on the third party operating system kernel that they
do not own. A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip, the
Libertas driver, still under development but also fully fuctional can
be found in our GIT tree."
Everything is always under development ;) Claiming that they are
dependent on third party stuff and that they can't release their
firmware because of that though, now that is the odd part in here.
But we could read this sentence differently and conclude that the GPL
code writers have the power to demand that they release the firmware.
Everyone that defend the GPL code should again look at themselves and
realize that it is part of the license to make public the code and make
it free for other to use when it is base on GPL.
Well, my English may not be so good, but as I understand this as a none
speaking English is that, "We use GPL code, but we can't and will not
release it"
I am pretty sure that Marvel didn't GPL their firmware. The rest though
(the driver) is in GIT (linux kernel source revisions crap system),
which does thus mean that it is publically available, license most
likely GPL.
The issues where this is all about, and also the part where Intel is
being banged into is that the redistribution of the firmware is not
allowed. Second point is that documentation to write ones own driver
isn't available either.
Well, sorry, I am not and never been a fan of GPL license
code, but one thing I know about it is that is you use any part of it,
you are force to release your code as well, like it or not!
Not exactly. If you make a piece of code, thus your own original work,
and tag it with GPL you don't actually have to release the code. You can
even ask cash for it and other weird constructs:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
nProbe (see www.ntop.org) for instance does this, as from
http://pkgsrc.se/net/nprobe : "nProbe is licensed under the GPL, but is
not currently available for public download. (You will need to know the
appropriate username and password to download the distribution file for
this package.) Please see the "nProbe Availability" section of ntop.org
for more information."
Thus yes, you can have GPL code that you don't have to distribute.
Fun part though is that anyone that buys your GPL code can release and
distribute it freely anyway because that is a 'freedom' they have from
the GPL.
The other side, if one takes from another author some GPL'd code and
extend it, one HAS to release it, as you are not the original copyright
owner.
BSD license thus is more free than GPL in that respect, as it gives the
user/extender of the code the option to spread it or not, while GPL
restricts you and forces you to release it. This is also the reason why
for instance iRiver's PMP-100 code had to be released, as they where
re-using cadenux, which contained GPL'd code.
I personally usually prefer BSD license for projects: everybody can do
whatever they want with it. I do tend to add a clause that I would like
to get a note saying "yes I am happily using your code", simply because
I like to know that people are actually using it. The 'thank you' factor
is of importance there. (A 'your code sucks' is also welcome as long as
people specify why so that I can improve on it and they can say 'thank
you' anyway ;)
On the subject of licenses though, no single commercial company will be
able to use any GPL'd or BSD'd code anyway, for the simple reason that
the author of the code might have (accidentally) coded some nice routine
into it that is covered by some silly patent somewhere on this planet.
The patentholder could find out that company X is using code based on
project Y and then sue them because the code provided by Y has code that
is covered by patent Z. As this can cost company X a lot of money
company X will never use anything BSD or GPL'd, unless they have
somebody do a lot of patent checks. But take a guess how many folks on
this planet know and understand every single patent out there next to
being able to analyze code and match them up with all those patents.
Patent on the GIF format is a nice exaple to start out with ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
Men,
I must be pretty darn stupid I have to say.
My point wasn't about the dam licenses or comparing GPL to BSD for
crying at loud!
I included here just as it was one small part of a stupid actions where
some take Children's hostage for self profit and forget their own origin
and at the same time have the power to make a change and choose to not
do so again for self serving reason and hide themselves behind false
pretenses!
Why is it that everyone always goes back to fight for licenses and keep
forgetting the big pictures here!
It doesn't matter what license you prefer or advocate here. The fact is
one party take advantage of open source in any shape of form you want
then turn around and is just so weak and wimp that it needs to hide it's
actions behind kids that really don't give a shit about the licenses and
have others needs!
That same party could make a difference and also contribute back to the
same open source that make them who they are to start with, but piss on
it big time and look the other way and try to justify it!
IT IS NOT A LICENSE ISSUE!
We only want to get free access to documentations, then you bet we could
really help children's may be, but then no one would restrict it's use
would they!
Free documentations and free redistributions of FIRMWARE for product
that everyone forget already have been paid for dammit!
Now I will shut up as obviously I make no sense as what's taken from it
is the dam license again and all the important point if forgotten!
This is driving nuts!
I sure understand why Theo can be mad at time, sure hell I couldn't do
what he does!
Just open your eyes guys!!!
It's right there in front of you and it couldn't hit you harder!
Regards,
Daniel
