Greg KH using Microsoft-style FUD to attack "non-free"? (was Re: video cards)

[Oren Beck]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>  > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Luke -Jr
>  > > <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > Avoid nVidia unless you agree with all of
>  > > > these statements:
>  > > >  1. Don't care that this combination is
>  > > > illegal.
>  > >
>  > > Never heard that one before.
>  >
>  > I'll cite Greg on this one...
>  >
>  > "I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot
>  > of different IP lawyers over the years about
>  > this topic, and every one that I've talked to
>  > all agree that there is no way that anyone can
>  > create a Linux kernel module, today, that can
>  > be closed source. It just violates the GPL due
>  > to fun things like derivative works and linking
>  > and other stuff."
>
>  http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
>
>  I went back and looked that link up, and lets quote
>  that paragraph of Greg's in context:
>
>  "I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of
>  different IP lawyers over the years about this topic,
>  and every one that I've talked to all agree that there
>  is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel
>  module, today, that can be closed source. It just
>  violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative
>  works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very
>  simple."
>
>  The paragraph immediately following your quote was
>  rather enlightening (emphasis mine):
>
>  "Now **no lawyer will ever come out in public and say
>  this, as lawyer really aren't allowed to make public
>  statements like this at all**. But **if you hire
>  one**, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting,
>  they will advise you of this issue."
>
>  I am not convinced by an argument that stipulates that
>  the people who told Greg that "kernel modules are
>  illegal" will NEVER VERIFY THIS AS TRUE unless you pay
>  them lots of money to tell you the same thing, and
>  even then they can't legally discuss in public what
>  you've talked about in private.  It sounds more like
>  Greg was inventing new reasons to keep "non-free" out
>  of the kernel.  At least RMS was honest enough to only
>  use independently verifiable reasons against including
>  "non-free" in distributions.
>
>  In fact, Greg's "argument" sounds a lot like the
>  Microsoft "counterargument" when you come to them
>  saying that your new device isn't working and the
>  manufacturer says its Microsoft's OS that is the
>  problem: "the problem isn't in our source code, and to
>  verify the truthfulness of our statement, you will
>  have to pay a lot of money and sign a NDA."  Not much
>  different from "closed source Linux drivers are
>  illegal, and to verify the truthfulness of this
>  statement, you will have to pay a lot of money and
>  agree to the legal equivalent of a NDA."
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
>

There are a few elements being overlooked.

Operating System users are best served by the code base being De
Minimus Libre- Even if Non Gratis.variants such as Xandros or the
older Lindows projects find niche markets.

APPLICATIONS are a breed apart and the Libre,Gratis, both or Neither
cases are too slippery to be dogmatic about globally. "Do you want to
be debarred from ever seeing a profit of any sort?"?
Or a worse alternative.. "Being prohibited from sharing code due to
draconian crushing bans on any copies of ANYTHING"

Copyright Vs Copyleft ;aw embodies a base presumption of assignable
rights. either refusing to allow or the freedom to grant that "right"
of copying.

Copy rights are *NOT* the same as code being OPEN. let alone
modifiable or reusable for other applications not explicit in status.
*I* can grant you permission to make copies of a script I write and
not grant you derivative rights. That's present accepted usage for
practical reasons. Where ALL this goes to hell is in the willful
attempts to play games with the rights of others or to "Be Evil"

We have a choice- which will WE be?

Making them both is only common sense

Not only the Libre Vs Gratis distinctions are at stake.
There's a whole realm of "Trade Secret"  opposed to any copyright or
patent where each of the varied concepts holds power. "Look&Feel" law
opens up yet more pure bad karma potency. As in  claims of Oh-say "one
click" for example. AFTER we exterminate all that by whatever means
viable-IF ANY exist.

Then we have the meritocracy of the marketplace to appease.  After al
the table chess and myriad lawyers polishing mirrors with smoke?  The
actual being able to do anything has only begun. Linux has edged past
other operating systems by a duality. T
 The fusion of  Gratis AND Libre works magic!
See Sir Arthur Clarke for details ok?

Linux advances by being both Libre and Gratis.

Non-free in both $ and Open code inherently loses.
Were it not for the legacy base and literal RICO flouting conducts?
Closed/non-free software would fade away into a few niches of
APPLICATIONS as opposed to OPERATING SYSTEMS.
.
Oren Beck

816.729.3645