Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,339

    Default "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

    Phoronix: "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

    The Linux kernel is having to remove support for NWFPE and VFP emulation code due to a licensing conflict. Removing NWFPE and VFP from the kernel will effectively render older ARM hardware on Linux useless until a solution is determined...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM0ODA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    This is handled by userspace FP library nowadays, so the change doesn't really break anything in the long run.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Interesting.

    Please allow me a maybe stupid question.
    Granted that the implementation is not compatible with GPLv2 and the Linux kernel people have to remove it:
    Is it sufficient to "only" provide a patch/commit that removes it from future versions?

    Simply speaking, isn't it the case that I can checkout the "official" Linux git repository,
    move to an older state/Tag and still have the support?

    If so, isn't that still legally problematic?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    If so, isn't that still legally problematic?
    IANAL, but I think the answer is yes, but only for people who actually do this. I think having GPL source code in the same repository as non-GPL source code is not a problem, the problem occurs when someone tries to compile it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

    The clause:
    USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IS RESTRICTED TO
    PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO CAN AND WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL
    LOSSES, COSTS, OR OTHER PROBLEMS THEY INCUR DUE TO THE SOFTWARE, AND WHO
    FURTHERMORE EFFECTIVELY INDEMNIFY JOHN HAUSER AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER
    SCIENCE INSTITUTE (possibly via similar legal warning) AGAINST ALL LOSSES,
    COSTS, OR OTHER PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THEIR CUSTOMERS AND CLIENTS DUE TO THE
    SOFTWARE.
    In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

    Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
    Last edited by droidhacker; 04-10-2013 at 03:01 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    IANAL, but I think the answer is yes, but only for people who actually do this. I think having GPL source code in the same repository as non-GPL source code is not a problem, the problem occurs when someone tries to compile it.
    It would actually be when someone tries to distribute that compiled binary - the GPL doesn't kick in if you are just compiling for yourself.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    It would actually be when someone tries to distribute that compiled binary - the GPL doesn't kick in if you are just compiling for yourself.
    If it's really like that, why not keep the code and make it a .config option then?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    If it's really like that, why not keep the code and make it a .config option then?
    Because the licensing zealots are loose. Somebody, hurry up and catch them before they can cause any more damage!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

    The clause:


    In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

    Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
    The GPL also contains the good bits.
    It's very crappy to say the one you give is the only good one.
    Forking the GPL to put the PERSONAL indemnification of a specific person and, or organization in it is stupid.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134

    Default Steal from *BSD?

    Why not use BSD-licensed code from one of the BSDs that support ARM?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •