Re: [tlug] Free versus open: a rant

[Botond Botyanszki <tlug@example.com>]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:39:29 +0900 (JST)
Joe Larabell <larabell@?jp> wrote:

> > ... Ie, just embed a patented algorithm in
> > hardware and you can distribute a derivative of a strong copyleft
> > program specialized to that "hardware", emasculating the GPL, no?
> 
> I don't think that's unique to hardware. Nvidea distributes non-Free
> drrivers for their video cards, they follow the cconventions for video
> device drivers, their drivers work well with Linux, but Linux is still
> Free even though it calls the drivers as soon as it sees an Nvidea card.
> 
> Speaking of which, isn't the hardware of nearly every video card on the
> market proprietary? What's the difference?
I did not want to further escalate this rant with a similar example as
yours above, thank you Joe for saving my time.
There are countless examples, such as mpeg encoder/decoder cards. You can
even consider the basic PC hardware (CPU, memory) proprietary as they
interface with the linux kernel (legally tough). 

So Steve, according to your reasoning you are violating the GPL if you use
a PC with GPLed software.
Did you know that the linux kernel contains non-free (i.e. binary form)
firmware? (BTW these will be removed from debian as they violate the
policy.) 
Are you running the linux kernel on proprietary hardware? If so, you are
preaching against yourself. Stop using your PC now! Thank you ;-)