Three kinds of packages

[Bill Davidsen]

Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> said:
>> I would just like to remind people that there are not two (Fedora and 
>> non-free) kinds of package, but three, the totally free (Fedora), the close 
>> source but legal (fglrx and similar vendor drivers), and the only legal in 
>> the free world, restricted in fascist countries.
>>
>> I mention this because vendor drivers, while not open source, are free and 
>> legal to use and redistribute. So let's not talk about rpmfusion and *forge 
>> software as illegal, much of it is not, even  in the USA.
> 
> Aside from calling the US fascist (which is a little over the top,

Save it for some politics group, anyone who doesn't think scanning phone 
conversations and email without warrant and torture are okay should go to 
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. This is not the place.

> especially since the US isn't the only country that has allowed and/or
> enforced the stupid patents), you're wrong on another point.  A number
> of the closed source kernel modules are of questionable legality (and
> not just in the US), because they may be derived works of the Linux
> kernel.  A derived work of the kernel must be GPLv2, which can't be
> closed source.
> 
This has been discussed on the LKML, please read there. The last opinion I saw 
of any authority said that using header files did not make it a derived work. 
Please discuss that elsewhere.

The point I was making is that fglrx and libdvcss are not remotely the same, 
software can be closed source and legal, or open source and illegal (in some 
places). Your obfuscation does not negate my premise.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot