There's a big difference between not useful to them and useful just for OSX. Valve helping driver development is not useful just to Valve, while Apple contributing a BSD licensed Objective-C wrapper to KHTML is useful just to Apple.
Originally Posted by ChrisXY
If you create a GPL-derived work, you either GPL your modifications, or you are in violation of the GPL. They can keep their code non-GPL, but the consequence of them doing so puts them in violation of the GPL and the holders of the Linux copyrights will terminate their license to distribute Linux.
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
Well obviously GPL is incompatible with DRM as GPL explicitly state that you may make as many copies as you want of said software while Apple enforces an artificial limit on how many copies you may make.
Originally Posted by deanjo
Still Microsoft solved this by simply stating that an OSI licence will take precedence over Microsofts own licence terms in their app store, so GPL is no problem there. Apple could do the same but they haven't.
RedHat will be holding a Suiance
"Quick put a hundred in the box, we need to grease the snitch!"
I took a second look at the Android graphics stack situation, specifically with regard to my LG Optimus V. It seems that the userland drivers are blobs. It also seems that the bit needed for video acceleration is a blob. Various Android hackers have claimed that it is a kernel component, but none of them have replied to my requests for information. These were not recent requests. After your reply, I poked around to try to find out what they did not tell me, but unfortunately, the graphics stack is not my area, so that did not end well. Anyway, you are right that things are not as bad as I made them sound. However, we still have blobs in the graphics stack and they are still a pain. As far as I know, few of these companies have released programming documentation, so even if we did have source code, most of us would be unable to do anything more than trivial fixes. Programming documentation is what we really need, but sadly, no license requires that. I am not even sure if it is possible for a license to require it.
Originally Posted by airlied
I did look into the reported matter a little more. First off, when companies refuse to release source code, it is usually because they would lose customers if others could review the code. In this situation, the code involved has an open source version called LIO (as was reported) and unfortunately, LIO appears to lack barrier support. I examined the code earlier this year after a user in IRC reported data loss and I could not find any hint of barrier support. Maybe I did not look hard enough, but I read enough code to convince myself that it was not there. Unless I am wrong, anyone using LIO is putting their data at risk until barrier support is implemented. Anyway, Redhat feels that the proprietary version puts them at a disadvantage, which is the only reason anyone cares:
With that said, it would be nice if someone would get programming documentation for the networking hardware used by the Asus RT-N66U. I know for a fact that it uses a binary kernel module because I spent days tearing apart the published firmware in an attempt to port Gentoo to the router. I shelved the port because hacking around the 11MB binary blob took too much time. As I recall, the blob required special attention from userland in order for the networking stack to function properly. I doubt that I would have time to fix something that broken even if I had the code. Programming documentation would be nice because then multiple people could work together to make something that I could package in Gentoo without breaking virtually every QA rule that I know.
Last edited by ryao; 11-15-2012 at 01:37 AM.
You don't have to GPL your modifications, you can release them under any FSF aproved licence. That includes some BSD licences among others.
Originally Posted by Syke
But you can't use any other copyleft license (like CDDL).
Originally Posted by Ansla
And compiled binary is under GPL.
There are LGPL and eCos that are copyleft and compatible with GPL.
LE: about the "compiled binary", if you are refering to a distinct kernel module or so, then no, it's under the license you choose, if the code you wrote is linked togheter with the GPL code the resulting binary is under BOTH lincences.
Last edited by Ansla; 11-15-2012 at 09:13 AM.
Any GPL-compatible license. The FSF does approve of some GPL-incompatible licenses under some circumstances (e.g. for APSL 2.0 "We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license.").
Originally Posted by Ansla