article on GPLv3, Linux kernel, and Devices Rigged to Malfunction
home at alexhudson.com
Mon Oct 23 13:19:49 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 12:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:26:47AM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > And it's not like he's the only one. But there are only a couple of
> > developers taking action over the GPL, and usually over the grossest
> > infringement (e.g., distribution without source).
> There's also things like EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, kernel tainting when
> proprietary modules are loaded and an advertised (and regularly used)
> lack of stability in internal kernel APIs.
I would say all those things are driven mostly by technical concerns
rather than legal ones necessarily, and that in general they do not
impact those who are writing non-free drivers, nor do they constitute
"action" per se.
For example, a number of companies have made a case for a consistent API
if not ABI, and that has generally been rejected on the grounds of
freedom to code, not freedom of code (which I think is a concise
description of the difference between open source-thinking people and
free software-thinking people).
> Requiring signed binaries is exactly what TiVo are doing.
Ok, I didn't know that. I think, though, that the rest of the points
stand - primarily that requiring signed binaries doesn't seem to me to
be a terribly common tactic, even though it would be relatively simple
(and is already pretty common on other platforms, like w32, esp. in
areas such as driver development).
More information about the Discussion