Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] PWC driver story continues.



On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Malcolm Caldwell wrote:

He pulled the GPL code too. Doesn't make a difference if the code is
binary or not. It was gone.

It was not 'gone'.  It still existed.  It was not in the *latest*
version of the kernel, but it was still in all the many many kernel
trees before everywhere (including kernel.org) created before it was
'removed'.  How many copies of that code continued to exist on our
planet?

Additionally, it was always said that the driver would be re-included if
someone submitted a patch and indicated they would support it.


No, it was not always said, I was part of that discussion and for instance Linus himself said initially that he would like the original maintainers wish for removal to be granted.

It was as gone as the binary part. If it weren't for the previous stable kernel version, one would have had to look for it in web or cvs-caches, just like for the binary part.

And both were quite hard to find on the web, strangely enough.

The question is this: should people be allowed to remove some GPL code they contributed themselves, or did they loose all ownership? I think there is no clear cut answer to this, either legally or morally.

If Linus wanted it out of the kernel source, what was than the difference with the binary driver? I don't think one was more gone than the other, in this case.

It was not removed from the public.  It was just not included in a few
revisions of the kernel, which AFAIK were not even marked as release
versions.


It was removed exactly like the binary part was removed, by the same person, for the same reason. And initially, it was intended to be completely removed, either part. If the maintainer pulled the code and sticked to his guns, one would have had to re-implement a driver which was already opensource (think about that :) ).

I am not expert on this but: The GPL does not restrict other licences
from existing, or even stop you using software with other licences.  It
does stop certain kinds of linking with GPL software.


That's like saying christians and muslims shouldn't mix. It's not freedom; restriction is not freedom. Sure, one can invent the rules of their own religion, but I think the GPL (and more specifically, how some uphold it more in letter than in spirit) is on thin ice regarding respect for other licenses, code and extremism. Ofcourse, I see the point of it, but I will not always categorically approve it.

I really believe that the default kernel should not depend on any closed source drivers, or require a closed source part. But I believe also that it should allow a way for people to load exterior software, whatever it takes to make things work. It does not take away from the GPL.

(Same goes for those everlasting debian discussions about movie players and their codecs... People should have the choice to load any binary codecs or even 'illegally obtained' decryption libraries for dvd's.)




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]