About Raling Linux Drivers and Trisquel 5.5
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I wrote an e-mail, asking Ralink, If those linux drivers posted on their website are propietary or Libre?
This was their e-mail reply:
Ralink Tech Inc.
* 5F., No.36, Taiyuan St., Jhubei City,
* Hsinchu County 302,
* Taiwan, R.O.C.
*
* (c) Copyright 2002-2010, Ralink Technology, Inc.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify *
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by *
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or *
* (at your option) any later version. *
* *
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, *
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of *
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the *
* GNU General Public License for more details. *
* *
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License *
* along with this program; if not, write to the *
* Free Software Foundation, Inc., *
* 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. *
* *
*************************************************************************/
My question is: WHY THE CUSTODIANS OF Trisquel, KEEP LOCKING THOSE DRIVERS?
Apparently they are using GNU LIBRE DRIVERS?
The firmware, i.e. the code the Wifi card (and not the CPU) executes, probably is proprietary. Check it out.
While the "driver" is free that alone doesn't make the device work. The real work is done by proprietary software that the driver loads.
So the "free driver" is, really, just a sham but they still get to proclaim to the world that they have "free drivers" because that's technically true and have people think that they can use the device in freedom. Don't believe them. Don't fall for it. It's totally bogus.
I am a member!
I understand you didn't know what the problem with these drivers are so don't feel like this is an attack on you. I'm just commenting on the amount of complaining done because ones learned software or current hardware isn't supported.
What I'm amazed at is the number of people who want to turn GNU/Linux into Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X. If your going to accept the non-free bits then why not just switch to one of the operating systems which have that developmental philosophy? If your going to gain from GNU/Linux you want to avoid as much of the non-free software as possible.
This isn't though some a comment about that though. There are developers in this wide GNU/Linux community who are obsessed with Mac and don't care about the philosophy at all. Again- I ask why are you using GNU/Linux? Stop trying to turn GNU/Linux into Mac OS X. I'm OK with improvements and changes whose ideas are inspired or taken from others. However when you start cloning little UI changes that make the system harder for the average user I'm going to disagree with those changes. There have been a number of things I have felt were cloned from Apple and/or Microsoft which were really bad UI choices (on Apple / Microsoft's part or badly cloned maybe).
Christ, JXSELF, MAGIC BANANA,
When I e-mail then was during my previous forum. Finally, they decided to answer me. I posted it, because their answer, was a bit confusing. That's all! Yet, I think of it informative to share with others and I just want to read what the pro's of Trisquel what would said?.
For the record:
I'm not attacking trisquel, I want to learn and understand the "Free and Propietary differences" and I don't use windows at all, I do all my clerical work with my laptop that is holding trisquel OSI. My old laptop will be upgraded pretty soon with some of the free hardware, , that includes building a PC from parts of the Penguin store.
Also, I have heard of companies releasing binary firmwares under the GPL, but not the source. In such a case people can hack on the binary but that is difficult. The company still has power over its users.
It's possible that this is not the case in this situation though.
On Sun, 2013-02-03 at 23:46 +0100, name at domain
wrote:
> Also, I have heard of companies releasing binary firmwares under the GPL, but
> not the source.
Err.. that's doesn't make sense as I understand the GPL; it requires the
source to be made available and for it to be in the form it's usually
edited in.
Of course it wouldn't be the first time a company has said something
stupid.
--
Bob Ham <name at domain>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
The copyright holder doesn't have to distribute the work under the terms of the license because he/she/it already has the right to distribute it in any way he/she/it wants under copyright.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that if software is distributed under the GPL without source code ever being provided, it is not possible for anyone else to redistribute it at all under those terms, because as you mention, distributing under the terms of the GPL requires either including the source code or providing it on request. If that's true, releasing something under the GPL, but not ever releasing the source, is no different from using no license at all in practice. Whether or not this is the case depends on whether the copyright holder's refusal to provide the source code so that you can comply with the license prevents them from successfully suing you.
I tried searching through my bookmarks to see if I kept the link I read, but no luck. But I did find another example with an internet search:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg01895.html
> I think that if software is distributed under the GPL without source code ever being provided, it is not possible for anyone else to redistribute it at all under those terms,
Maybe... or maybe the binary and source are initially the "same thing" if the binary is GPL'd by the author. The definition of "source" in the GPL:
> The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.
name at domain wrote ..
> The copyright holder doesn't have to distribute the work under the
terms of
> the license because he/she/it already has complete permission to
distribute
> it in any way he/she/it wants under copyright.
>
> Actually, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that if software is
distributed
> under the GPL without source code ever being provided, it is not
possible for
> anyone else to redistribute it at all under those terms, because as
you
> mention, distributing under the terms of the GPL requires either
including
> the source code or providing it on request. If that's true, releasing
> something under the GPL, but not ever releasing the source, is no
different
> from using no license at all in practice. Whether or not this is the
case
> depends on whether the copyright holder's refusal to provide the
source code
> so that you can comply with the license prevents them from
successfully suing
> you.
As you say, there's no harm to the copyright holder but third parties
can't comply with the GPL since they have no source to offer. In these
cases it triggers the GPL's "Liberty Or Death" clause, which
essentially says "Freeze!" and the program becomes undistributable.
Linux-libre neatly steps around this problem by deleting these
problematic areas.
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 00:43 +0100, name at domain wrote:
> releasing
> something under the GPL, but not ever releasing the source, is no different
> from using no license at all in practice.
If you're the copyright holder and you release something under the GPL
but refuse to release the source, you never released it under the GPL in
the first place. What you're saying doesn't make sense.
--
Bob Ham <name at domain>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
Bob Ham:
"What you're saying doesn't make sense."
You should check out the kernel named Linux, then -- It contains
binary blobs which the copyright holder states are licensed under the
GPL, but no source code is available for them from anywhere. That
doesn't make the license notice invalid though.
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:05:44 -0800 (PST), "Jason Self"
<name at domain>
wrote:
> Bob Ham:
>
> "What you're saying doesn't make sense."
>
> You should check out the kernel named Linux, then -- It contains
> binary blobs which the copyright holder states are licensed under the
> GPL, but no source code is available for them from anywhere.
That does seem odd indeed. Which binary blobs do the copyright holders
state are under the GPL?
--
Bob Ham <name at domain>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
> That does seem odd indeed. Which binary blobs do the copyright holders
> state are under the GPL?
Check out the kernel source code - It's all there.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:57:13 -0800 (PST), "Jason Self"
<name at domain>
wrote:
>> That does seem odd indeed. Which binary blobs do the copyright holders
>> state are under the GPL?
>
> Check out the kernel source code - It's all there.
Which bit of the kernel source code? There's a lot there :-)
Do you have any links to information about this? I couldn't find anything
searching the web.
--
Bob Ham <name at domain>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:46:08 +0100 (CET),
name at domain wrote:
>
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=WHENCE;h=96142c28d3e1e6d8b9f422bef27970f58661c9e2;hb=HEAD
This is completely insane; it makes no sense whatsoever. As I understand
it, every person who distributes these "Allegedly GPLv2+" blobs is
violating said GPLv2+ license as they can't provide access to the source
code. They're distributing it illegally.
> See
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_and_firmware
This doesn't seem to mention anything about the insanity of copyright
holders declaring their work to be under the GPL while refusing to release
the source.
--
Bob Ham <name at domain>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
All the more reason to use Linux-libre [0]. It neatly steps around any
legal issues by deleting all of these problematic parts.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios