Ubuntu Jaunty Installation Guide

From cchtml.com
Revision as of 16:37, 1 September 2012 by 92.96.151.88 (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

Very well written . You semeed to have covered much of the history and surrounding issues.One issue that you didn't touch that I've heard (and would be very interested to hear what people inside ubuntu thinks about) is the legal problems this might have for you.All binary modules shipped apparently gets around the GPL requirements by not having producesd the code for linux from the beginning (not a derived work), and not linking it (themselves) to the linux kernel meaning they don't need to think about the distribution requirements in the GPL. Instead they let the user link it together and it then becomes a derived work. If the user would distrubute their newly linked kernel (incl. modules) they would violate the GPL Nvidia didn't distribute the derived work, they just provides the user with the tools to let the user shoot themselves in the foot.(Short: the two distributed separately is no problem, it's only a problem when they are distributed together since they have conflicting licenses w.r.t. distribution.)Now what happens if a distribution like Ubuntu automatically links inte the binary modules and distributes them? Wouldn't this be a GPL violation?IANAL and I din't really care what you do . It would still be interesting to hear the ubuntu opinion on this particular issue.(And for extra bonus, what impact do you think this will have on developers wanting to work on Ubuntu? Mark Shuttleworth recently tried to lure OpenSuse developers to Ubuntu based on the Novell/Microsoft deal which IMHO very vagely _might_ have violated the GPL or the spirit of free software This issue with binary only modules is still not clearly a violation in legal terms, but IMHO *alot* more clear then whatever Novell/MS did and certainly alot more in violation of the free software spirit .)