OT: Re: [clue-tech] Shame shame

[Angelo Bertolli]

David L. Anselmi wrote:
> Collins Richey wrote:
> [...]
>> Yeah, the summary is
>>
>> 1. non GPL kernel modules are evil, right? (alas, not a no brainer
>> question, unless you happen to be RMS or Debian or a righteous kernel
>> developer).
>
> [rant about proprietary software that might be useful snipped]
>
>> In less sarcastic mode: I have no objection to the presence of GPL
>> software. We all benefit from it greatly. By the same token, I have no
>> objection to non GPL software. If you build a better mousetrap (GPL or
>> otherwise), the world will beat a pathway to your door, and you won't
>> need to cooerce manufacturers and users a la M$.
>
> No, this has nothing to do with the argument about using Free vs. 
> non-Free software.  It's about copyright law and licenses to 
> distribute copies of software.
>
> Linus licensed the kernel under the GPL.  The GPL says non-GPL kernel 
> modules are illegal.[1]
>
> This is about breaking the law and ways to enforce it, not about 
> behaving morally.
Maybe, but it's hard to complain.  Linux already has a hard enough time 
with hardware support as it is... I suspect that trying to enforce the 
copyright issue will only make it more likely that stuff doesn't work on 
Linux.  It's up to the copyright holder to enforce the copyright, and it 
seems like so far they haven't really been trying too hard.  My guess is 
for that reason.

Angelo