6 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallo,
I'm reviewing the package openafs-kmod new. The releated review request
you may find at:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=803
Unfortunately, The webpage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
shows, that the IBM Public License is not compatible to
the GPLv2 license which is the license used for the Linux kernel.
So I want to ask, to which repository - free or non-free - we should
take this package.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iJwEAQECAAYFAkrwb7QACgkQZLAIBz9lVu8newQAuJEE/2ERAjQi4KAT2hT5ToKM
0c4tRfCadKVQg0AlAdB/56G1vMG25XRf8zUnVqiCSvm7xz+clzIGwzi78PogLX4K
v1kifunDKFNRoMIRum5sMozZtJMnb52De4kUaSIPxv9y8Z7QO10oGF6GWshTgOtp
8DkArBzS9IfHDSqXKPs=
=EsSC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:07 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
I'm reviewing the package openafs-kmod new. The releated review request
you may find at:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=803
Unfortunately, The webpage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
shows, that the IBM Public License is not compatible to
the GPLv2 license which is the license used for the Linux kernel.
So I want to ask, to which repository - free or non-free - we should
take this package.
As far as I know, GPL has an exception for linking against system
components (i.e. kernel). So free repo should be fine.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Orcan
6:18 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 03.11.2009 19:07, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
As far as I know, GPL has an exception for linking against system
components (i.e. kernel). So free repo should be fine.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but I'm talking about a kernel module
which is licensed under the
IBM Public License. This means, that non-GPL code will be called from
GPL-code.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iJwEAQECAAYFAkrwc+oACgkQZLAIBz9lVu9W/QP8CATVIWbETjE4N7WfJLvOugkr
kNiZdi919oPvd3+FHGMiGpmpoUBh64uVi8uvg1PFoLSKLX7k+qz8J+lHGPNYrZgZ
fHczK9WG3gZTqqTnLM0uOqKtQSZLxhmNvhH6ACkyU6NuAQyRlPkTX1hN9Oc4n7G/
7RXzg2Zg0w5Tpv+JC3A=
=C+hQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:26 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:18:26PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Am 03.11.2009 19:07, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
> As far as I know, GPL has an exception for linking against system
> components (i.e. kernel). So free repo should be fine.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but I'm talking about a kernel module which is licensed under the
IBM Public License. This means, that non-GPL code will be called from
GPL-code.
If this is a problem, then it cannot go into any RPMFusion repository,
because packages in RPMFusion still need to be legally distributable,
even if they are in the nonfree repository.
Since the IBM Public License is FSF free according to the Fedora
Licensing Wikipage, the package should go into the free repo.
Regards
Till
7:08 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 03.11.2009 19:26, schrieb Till Maas:
If this is a problem, then it cannot go into any RPMFusion
repository, because packages in RPMFusion still need to be legally
distributable, even if they are in the nonfree repository.
Since the IBM Public License is FSF free according to the Fedora
Licensing Wikipage, the package should go into the free repo.
OK, because we have the nvidia kmods in rpmfusion, I will agree
with your mind, so we should put the package in the free repo.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iJwEAQECAAYFAkrwf7wACgkQZLAIBz9lVu+BMwP/VUpQK+SmsLS8OEn0dbZ/WdxL
MwCP1Nl1Zc7lK+ml0DMion/ucPh1BnI68/+t4vil2IsN1FcFlscIw0FJ+Orqp3Kc
Kpdghfh99kqKQbvM5n+nsH1hwL2Qs7K1MEn0q3oNyC7VLTnL0AlI0eA2cYjsm6m6
fxuKxX5xMH5fKOVlK3Y=
=gtaH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:51 p.m.
Till Maas wrote:
If this is a problem, then it cannot go into any RPMFusion
repository,
because packages in RPMFusion still need to be legally distributable,
even if they are in the nonfree repository.
All GPL-incompatible kmods are illegal, yet RPM Fusion still ships them.
So, as kmod-nvidia and others are allowed, I don't see why this one wouldn't
be allowed as well.
Kevin Kofler
6:55 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
> If this is a problem, then it cannot go into any RPMFusion repository,
> because packages in RPMFusion still need to be legally distributable,
> even if they are in the nonfree repository.
All GPL-incompatible kmods are illegal, yet RPM Fusion still ships them.
So, as kmod-nvidia and others are allowed, I don't see why this one wouldn't
be allowed as well.
Is it an official RPMFusion opinion, that these kmods are illegal?
Because then these FAQ entry needs to be adjusted:
http://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#head-3c87307eb360d4f17920dcf064039366de8f58df
Regards
Till
7:12 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > If this is a problem, then it cannot go into any RPMFusion repository,
> > because packages in RPMFusion still need to be legally distributable,
> > even if they are in the nonfree repository.
>
> All GPL-incompatible kmods are illegal, yet RPM Fusion still ships them.
>
> So, as kmod-nvidia and others are allowed, I don't see why this one wouldn't
> be allowed as well.
Is it an official RPMFusion opinion, that these kmods are illegal?
Because then these FAQ entry needs to be adjusted:
http://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#head-3c87307eb360d4f17920dcf064039366de8f58df
No it is only personal opinion. There is an ongoing debate about this
and this is certainly a grey area. It depends on how a particular
country's copyright law defines the concept "derived work". If the
country considers closed source kernel modules as derivatives of the
Linux kernel, then yes, it is a violation of GPL. However many,
including Linus, think that it is hard to consider these drivers as
derivative work. Since there is no court case example ruling in either
way, we can't really be 100% sure, either way. For instance, NVidia is
a big company. We are sure that they got some legal advise before
releasing binary drivers.
Orcan
5287
days inactive
5289
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jochen Schmitt -
Kevin Kofler -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Till Maas