DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Hrb8mhF2IG+AC8s+2SPBhM6nAfgrCLO1WQr5MNjgV0wQgZCY/TkSyhWx9ScOtDE//cuBCsgzira0Y62xK/DJBMdHNf7aaW71ZskVDTcgr9CE/qyEwAs2BG7OPk0zFAz7nAsGCFE82zlIeoT0WqlqdBFHtPQcbSIyCtmNogjig2o=
Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches
	for 2.6.19]
From: karderio <karderio@gmail.com>
Reply-To: karderio@gmail.com
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612151615550.3849@woody.osdl.org>
References: <1166226982.12721.78.camel@localhost>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612151615550.3849@woody.osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: karderio
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:32:36 +0100
Message-Id: <1166236356.12721.142.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4586
Lines: 107

Re :o)

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > 
> > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software 
> community" is for.
> 
> We're "open source" and we're not a religion.

In the spirit of mutual understanding, I will not say that I do not care
"what you are for", despite your at least very unfriendly reply. You are
a person, I care about you, no matter how hard that can be.

To be as blatantly frank with you as you are with me, I will say I
personally do not care much for open source. I do not see the point of
having source code if it's owner imposes the same arbitrary restrictions
on my use of it as they can on binary, I want more guarantees than that.

>  We don't "twist peoples arms".

I didn't suggest that you twist peoples arms, I was talking about my
imaginary "free software community" ;)

> We show people what we think is a better way, and we let them 
> participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it, and it's ok not to 
> believe in the GPL or our ideals.

That seems great, this is also one of the things I aspire to. I was
simply suggesting that perhaps a minor compromise to this principle may
be in order, which is of course debatable.

> In fact, "our ideals" aren't even one unified thing to begin with.

I'm sure they're not, I don't really see how that would work to be
honest.

> We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you have to _use_ things 
> in a certain way". We don't think "fair use" is a bad thing. We encourage 
> it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves. It means, most 
> particularly, that even people we disagree with have that right of "fair 
> use".

As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations. In what is the
suggestion for kernel modules fundamentally different from what you
already require of your users ?

> That, btw, is what "freedom" and "rights" are all about. It's obly 
> meaningful when you grant those rights to people you don't agree with. 

Precisely. A community grants users the right to an open source kernel,
why should certain vendors take away from this freedom by providing
binary only drivers because they don't agree with that community ?

> Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet, let me point it 
> out to you: the end results don't justify the means, and never did. So 
> arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think the end result 
> might be worth it. It's still bad.

That of course was neither suggested nor implied by what I said, at
least not intentionally.

> And btw, that "information freedom" thing you talked about is just so much 
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is 
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
> 
> It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the foremost of which is to 
> just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and do what they 
> want, that "information freedom" will follow.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I would even go to as
far as encouraging it in a discussion. If I may however, I think it is
no more effort to disagree respectfully, rather than being sarcastic,
insulting and using words that could be interpreted as downright
aggressive.

Of course "freedom of information" could never hold a candle to peoples
freedom, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. There is a big
difference between "reasonable measures" and "fighting", I don't see
where you got that from.

I think that the basic problem for which we are seeking a solution is
that binary drivers do not permit people to "do what they want", which
by your own definition, shows that they take away from "_peoples_
freedom".

> It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing other people and other 
> viewpoints. 

I certainly hope I didn't seem to suggest anything like that, you appear
to be ranting at me because of your disagreements with some third party.
Is "software as a religion" some sort of "joke religion" like Invisible
Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism ?

Love, Karderio.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/