Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Three Sixty (talk | contribs) m →Software developer's view: m c/e |
||
Line 24:
In the [[Linux kernel]] development community, [[Linus Torvalds]] has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules: "I ''refuse'' to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module ... I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's ''their'' problem".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html|title=a/lt-binary}}</ref> Another kernel developer, [[Greg Kroah-Hartman]], has said that a binary-only kernel module does not comply with the kernel's license (the [[GNU General Public License]]); it "just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html|title=Myths, Lies, and Truths about the Linux kernel|first=Greg|last=Kroah-Hartman|publisher=linux kernel monkey log}}</ref> Writer and computer scientist [[Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)|Peter Gutmann]] has expressed concern that the [[digital rights management]] scheme in Microsoft's [[Windows Vista]] operating system may limit the availability of the documentation required to write open drivers, since it "requires that the operational details of the device be kept confidential."<ref name=vista-cost>{{cite journal |author=Peter Gutmann|date=2006-12-26 |title=A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection|url=http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#oss|access-date=2007-01-28 |author-link=Peter Gutmann (computer scientist) }}</ref>
In the case of binary drivers, there are objections due to [[free software]] philosophy, software quality and [[computer insecurity|security]] concerns.<ref>[https://lwn.net/Articles/195351/ Linux Weekly News, Aug 14, 2006: ''X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules'']</ref> In 2006, [[Greg Kroah-Hartman]] concluded that:
<blockquote>"Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal. That's it, it is very simple. 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 [[GNU General Public License|GPL]] due to fun things like [[derivative works]] and [[Linker (computing)|linking]]."
| |||