# GPL only modules in future kernels

## srlinuxx

I guess by now everyone's read about the proposed kernel patch to keep binary blobs from loading or hooking into the kernel.  

Well, a developer from another distro said they were just gonna back out of those patches, so they'd be still be able to use binary-only drivers such as NVIDIA graphic drivers.  Will Gentoo developers do the same?

----------

## whig

The Linux kernel will remain GPL (v2 or 3...) so just patch it so it accepts any kernel module you like.

----------

## 96140

Well, after some thought, Grek K H removed his proposed modules.c patch.

It's over. Crisis averted.

----------

## srlinuxx

Thank goodness!  I was thinking of switching back to Windows!  lol  j/k

----------

## Sachankara

 *srlinuxx wrote:*   

> Thank goodness!  I was thinking of switching back to Windows!  lol  j/k

 If you value your hardware more than your software freedom, then perhaps you should.

----------

## srlinuxx

 *Sachankara wrote:*   

>  *srlinuxx wrote:*   Thank goodness!  I was thinking of switching back to Windows!  lol  j/k If you value your hardware more than your software freedom, then perhaps you should.

 

My first inclination is to reply with something that would get me banned, but suffice to say, it ceases being free when I'm dictated what drivers I can use.  It should be my choice if I want to use NVIDIA drivers or not.  So, yes, I value being able to use my $400 video card to play a few of the $60 premium games available for Linux than being an open-source purist.  I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.  

Your smart-ass remark really had no place in this thread.  It was neither constructive or welcome.

----------

## EzInKy

 *srlinuxx wrote:*   

> 
> 
> My first inclination is to reply with something that would get me banned, but suffice to say, it ceases being free when I'm dictated what drivers I can use.  It should be my choice if I want to use NVIDIA drivers or not.  So, yes, I value being able to use my $400 video card to play a few of the $60 premium games available for Linux than being an open-source purist.  I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.  
> 
> 

 

It's not a matter of being an open source purist. There are many sound technical and security related reasons to keep closed binaries out of kernel space. Without access to the source kernel maintainers can't ascertain what havoc these blob may be playing with other drivers or what processes they may be interfering with. Sure, I agree with you that you should be able to run the drivers of your choice, but at the same time it's not hard to understand the frustration that some of the developers are feeling.

----------

## srlinuxx

Well yeah, I can understand that side of it.  However, they can only do with what they have access.  As a result, users take on the responsibility if they choose to use binary code.  If there is a security risk in them or they cause instability or even hardware damage occurs, again, it was the users' choice.   I just don't think the choice should be taken away.   It was very upsetting when it looked as though there was going to be a "we can't..." in our future.  The main draw of Linux (for me) was choice and freedom, and it seemed like a step towards 'the dark side' when it was threatened.

----------

## EzInKy

It would never be a "we can't..." thing, Linux is open source after all and people patch it to suit their needs.

----------

## olger901

Whats the big problem...I mean the kernel is OPEN source! If they apply a patch that prevents you from loading a binary driver and you don't like it, you can change it to the way you like it , and that is what I'd call the true power of open source  :Wink:   :Smile: 

----------

## ashtophet

++

Furthermore, as FSF people (and RMS in the front of them) encourage people's freedom, they cannot go against their principles claiming for "freedom to be a slave" (which is a nonsense) ... The comparision with RIAA is just falacious: RIAA (Microsoft, some hardware manufactures, etc.) encourages slavery, FSF, freedom[1].

Anyway, if we reach such a state of things (binary blob being officially banned from kernel), free software users could access source code, modify it, create patches... to be slaves. So, technically, they'd be free to be slaves. 

---------------------------------------------------

[1] Of course, 'freedom' and 'slavery' in this context only affect to a (little) part of life which is insignificant considering other ways of being a slave or a free human being (if this is ontologically possible).

----------

## desultory

 *whig wrote:*   

> The Linux kernel will remain GPL (v2 or 3...) so just patch it so it accepts any kernel module you like.

 Linux is distributed under GPL v2, and is likely to remain that way.

 *Sachankara wrote:*   

>  *srlinuxx wrote:*   Thank goodness!  I was thinking of switching back to Windows!  lol  j/k If you value your hardware more than your software freedom, then perhaps you should.

 A more apt suggestion would have been NetBSD, it even works on toasters providing even broader hardware support.

 *olger901 wrote:*   

> Whats the big problem...I mean the kernel is OPEN source! If they apply a patch that prevents you from loading a binary driver and you don't like it, you can change it to the way you like it , and that is what I'd call the true power of open source  

 And how, pray tell, are you going to get all vendors providing binary drivers to agree to the use of the same patch to allow binary drivers in kernel space? Or, conversely, how will multiple patches to allow binary drivers in kernel space be configured so as to prevent software conflicts between them? Seriously.

 *ashtophet wrote:*   

> "freedom to be a slave" (which is a nonsense)

 Not nonsense, just poorly phrased. The ability to intentionally limit ones own further options, would perhaps state the intended meaning more clearly.

----------

## bradbeglin

Ya, I was really glad that Linus talked some sense into the developers.

First, yes there are some techical advantages in general, but there are things like KQemu that are not open source or GPL, just as VMware is not.  Those apps need the kernel to work properly.  Besides, graphics is moving open source anyway (R300, Intel, Open Graphics Card), and if there is such a performance increase in having the graphics drivers on the client side, then I bet you my lunch money the open source guys will be the first there. 

Second, you are right, we could always unpatch it if we need to.  Well, who is that going to help, not the developers and power users that have made linux what it is today.  I mean that is about as stupid as me having to play my DVDs for a few seconds before I can copy them.  The same guys that are mandating this are going to be the only ones that actually take the time to unpatch it.  Seems like a good way to create more needless work.  Yes, it can be done, but it is an extra step serves no purpose other than for the kernel developers to show their a##es (to clarify, I know the DVD thing is because the MPAA is a bunch of greedy mongers).  

Third, I have had enough of the political crap that Linux is the annoited savior to bring all the companies to open source and to get people away from evil M$.  Linux is an OS, not a crusade.  No, saying that there will be no more binary kernel modules will not force Nvidia, ATI, and all the other hardware companies to give out there specs or open their drivers up.  That is total bull crap, and anyone that believes it is living in a dream world.  All those companies know where they get 90% of their money, and it is not from us.  Linus is right, this is hypocracy and political activism.  Look, you think Windows locks you in, well this would have been an attempt to lock people in to linux and only GPL code.  The way I see it, linux is growing leaps and bounds because of the openness, not because it is rattling sabers.  

Lastly, the kernel guys were saying they wanted to avoid the Ubuntu fesco.  What, Ubuntu finally got smart enought to realize that their open source bigotry was getting in the way of users being able to use the system.  If I had a dollar for everytime an Ubuntu user gets on and flames Nvidia on their forums because they have to manual install their drivers and then someone has to explain that it is Ubuntu's fault, well lets just say I would be somewhere tropical and would not have to be in college.  I mean the editor of Linux Journal is no better, he just flamed Ubuntu a few months back because he could not install his tv tuner card.  Look, as Linus said, closed source is not the devil, Bin Laden, or George Bush (depends on which koolaid you drink), there are legitimate reasons for it, and the guys that wrote the code have the right to distribute it any way they want.  If you do not like it, take your business else where, and do not work for them.  But do not force your political and religious views on everyone else, if we are idiots, fine let us be, cus ignorance is bliss....

----------

## neocui

 *srlinuxx wrote:*   

> Thank goodness!  I was thinking of switching back to Windows!  lol  j/k

 

No please don't do that. Consider FreeBSD. There is another free world outside of GPL-dom.

----------

## batistuta

 *gtbrad wrote:*   

> The way I see it, linux is growing leaps and bounds because of the openness, not because it is rattling sabers

 

The way I see it, Linux is growing because it is becoming much easier to use and because it is free (in term of it doesn't cost money). In my (controversial) opinion, most people couldn't care less about it being open source. Don't take me wrong, for me open sourceness is a big factor. But I think for most people switching this is not.

----------

## EzInKy

 *batistuta wrote:*   

>  *gtbrad wrote:*   The way I see it, linux is growing leaps and bounds because of the openness, not because it is rattling sabers 
> 
> The way I see it, Linux is growing because it is becoming much easier to use and because it is free (in term of it doesn't cost money). In my (controversial) opinion, most people couldn't care less about it being open source. Don't take me wrong, for me open sourceness is a big factor. But I think for most people switching this is not.

 

Linux is becoming easier to use because the open source development model allows anyone who can code to contribute improvements to the system, and those who can't to critique it.

----------

## Sachankara

Without the openness of open source and the ability to properly debug and fix broken stuff - open source is doomed to fail. I guess that if Linux crashes and burns sometime in the future, it'll be because of all old Windows and Mac OS X converts that choose the temporary comfort of binary drivers.

Open source and "free software" has been successful so far, not because its support of binary drivers, but because of its openness and its constant strive to become better. Adding a ton of non-debuggable stuff to open source software will only make it impossible to maintain in the long run. I guess if Microsoft ever wants to make sure Linux doesn't succeed outside the server room, all they have to do is make sure that companies keep developing close source drivers only. :/ (People will use binary drivers, then the companies will just stop creating new ones and people will have to stick with old and unsecure kernels. Then they'll get tired of the problems, blaim the Linux developers for it, and later return to whatever propriatry OS they were using before)

One more example, a crazy one: Assume binary drivers become as common for Linux as they are for Windows. So when Linux has become large enough, Microsoft "et al" starts buying those companies who develop hardware and drivers for Linux. After the buyout, Microsoft then just stop developing drivers for your hardware. Like when nVidia bought 3dfx, if you remember it? What will you do then if there are no real competitors out there? Start all over again?

----------

## batistuta

 *EzInKy wrote:*   

> Linux is becoming easier to use because the open source development model allows anyone who can code to contribute improvements to the system, and those who can't to critique it.

 

Good point. I mean, indirectly, the reason why lots of software is "free in terms of cost", is because it is also opensource. In terms of robustness, let's not link them. The kernel and some other projects are robust because of them being open source. Others are written by amateurs and are buggy as hell.

And maybe I'm being a bit too pragmatic here. My point is that people use windows because it comes preinstalled on their system. People use Photoshopt and Office, because they easy to crack. So indirectly, the fact that they are open source helps, but in the end most people don't care. There are many close-source good quality freeware applications. They want easy to use free stuff. People keep using Skype, vmware, opera, etc. The last two are excellent products, despite them being close-source.

 *Sachankara wrote:*   

> Without the openness of open source and the ability to properly debug and fix broken stuff - open source is doomed to fail. I guess that if Linux crashes and burns sometime in the future, it'll be because of all old Windows and Mac OS X converts that choose the temporary comfort of binary drivers.

 

No offense dude, but this was the joke of the week. I mean, the open-source nvidia driver will never crash because it doesn't do anything useful to make it crash  :Very Happy: 

 *Sachankara wrote:*   

> Open source and "free software" has been successful so far, not because its support of binary drivers, but because of its openness and its constant strive to become better.

 

I think it was the combination of both its open and proprietary things. Linux allows them to cohexist. That's what made it sucessful. How much would have movie studios used linux without the binary drivers? My point is that the linux kernel doesn't allow close-source things to link to it. Period. But it allows close-source SW to run in user space. The nvidia drivers are grey zone because is not considered kernel derived work. This is the question that kernel developpers were trying to address here.

But people like you who favour open source only SW, would not stop at the drivers issue. They would require anything that runs on Linux to be open source, possibly the hardware as well.

 *Sachankara wrote:*   

> One more example, a crazy one: Assume binary drivers become as common for Linux as they are for Windows. So when Linux has become large enough, Microsoft "et al" starts buying those companies who develop hardware and drivers for Linux. After the buyout, Microsoft then just stop developing drivers for your hardware. Like when nVidia bought 3dfx, if you remember it? What will you do then if there are no real competitors out there? Start all over again?

 

Same as now: 

- you use some board that has open drivers, like intel

- you wait until someone making decent graphic cards decides to cover that market

- you switch OS

- you don't use 3D stuff or buy latest video cards

- but most important: never stop telling everyone how cool the world of open source is, because that's the only answer to universal happiness   :Laughing: 

----------

## bradbeglin

 *Quote:*   

> Adding a ton of non-debuggable stuff to open source software will only make it impossible to maintain in the long run.

 

You are dead on, and I am definitely not going to say that it will never be a problem (I leave predictions to my magic 8-ball).  But, linux has had binary drivers almost since the beginning and I do not think anyone would argue that we are in a better position now than we were say in 1995.  The thing is that we are already moving in the right direction, more stuff I would bet is being opened up than added with binary only drivers.  Now, if a ton of open source stuff was getting abandoned in favor of closed source drivers, then closing of the kernel to binary modules would probably be a great idea.  But, the opposite is true, so why on earth would we want to chance stemming the momentum that we have gained, when there is very little likely advantage and a very great chance that we could shoot ourselves in the foot?

 *Quote:*   

> The way I see it, Linux is growing because it is becoming much easier to use and because it is free (in term of it doesn't cost money). In my (controversial) opinion, most people couldn't care less about it being open source. Don't take me wrong, for me open sourceness is a big factor. But I think for most people switching this is not.

 

Nope, again you are right.  The most of the people that are on Ubuntu, et al, are not here because of the GPL.  They are here because the software is getting easier, now has more features than Windows and Mac, and because it is free as in beer.  

But, this patch was not about the users directly, it was about companies.  Companies are just not going to magically throw up there hands and surrender because we tell them they have to open up their drivers.  Now, yes if we had say a 40% market share, then companies would do whatever we told them to do, but we do not have anywhere near that clot.  Remember, it is not the guys that actually write the software that choose whether to open up their code or not, it is the suits.  Now, seriously, you think the suits are going to see the kernel being closed off to binary modules as anything other than a hostile move.  I doubt it.  The way to keep winning the suits over is to get them first to just support the OS period, and then after they see how much work it is for them to keep up with binary code, they will open up their code, because it is easier on them. 

If we really seriously want to force a company to open source their code, then what we really should do is reverse engineer the heck out of their stuff.  Look at Java, I still think that one of the main reasons that Sun decided to open up Java is that the GCJ was about 6 months to a year from having an open source version that was compatible to the real thing.  That meant that Sun was going to loose control anyway, so they might as well open source the code and get the press and the good publicity out of the whole thing, and come out looking like nice guys.  Right now, there is rumblings out of ATI(well AMD, same difference) that their code might be opened up.  I doubt it is just a coincidence that there are finally rumors of such a move at the same time that the R300 project is making major progress and getting close to compatibility.  Even DRM is being rumored to be on the way out, I doubt it is because of people's complaints, because the average consumer just sucks it up and keeps buying the crap anyway.  I would bet it is because the media companies are finally realizing that no matter how much money they waste on DRM schemes, the community is going to break it anyway.  I know if I was an executive, if the results are going to be the same either way,  I would stop wasting money trying to do everything the hard way (closed source) and just concede to doing it the easy way and take advantage of the good press.

----------

