Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 22-Nov-2024 14:41:28 JST Sick Sun

   • fiat volvntas tva
   @scathach i don't totally understand the purpose but yeah theres a macro you stick in your module that specifies the license and some parts of the kernel won't let you call them if your moudle isn't gpl2 compatible.
   
   their driver was erroneously advertising it was gpl2 when it was actually gpl3 and when they fixed it their drivers broke
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 22-Nov-2024 15:43:34 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • fiat volvntas tva
     @sun @scathach The macro is MODULE_LICENSE and the only string the macro really accepts is "GPL" and it seems those Linux developers haven't read the GPLv2;
     Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
     
     The driver was erroneously advertising it was any version, when it was GPLv3-or-later seemingly.
     
     There wouldn't have been any issues if many Linux developers didn't maliciously license GPLv2-only.
     
     
     The hypocrisy of the Linux developers was of course enormous, considering that they're okay with proprietary modules, but free modules under a free license that better respects the users freedom are unacceptable?
     
     
     Nothing was fixed - rather the modules were added into a module blacklist, which was inane considering that they were in the process of getting the modules re-licensed to GPLv2-or-later.
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 22-Nov-2024 17:43:10 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to

     • fiat volvntas tva
     @sun @scathach Of course this isn't an issue with separate package like https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Linux_firmware but will cry endlessly about GPLv3 code.
     Ffs gplv2-only is such a scum license to put on the kernel.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2024 21:31:32 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • fiat volvntas tva
     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage @sun @scathach >this isn't an issue with separate package like
     That is not a separate package.
     
     That software is updated in lockstep with Linux and is clearly massive derivative works, even though it happens to run on different processors in different memory spaces.
     
     One of the files even contains a copy of Linux without the source code.
     
     >gplv2-only is such a scum license
     That is a free license, so merely licensing under it is never scummy.
     
     What is scummy is licensing -only for the sole reason to pervert freedom, by not enforcing your license when it comes to proprietary software, but enforcing it when it comes to free software, licensed under the GPLv3-or-later.
     Alexandre Oliva likes this.