Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

    Phoronix: "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

    The Linux kernel is having to remove support for NWFPE and VFP emulation code due to a licensing conflict. Removing NWFPE and VFP from the kernel will effectively render older ARM hardware on Linux useless until a solution is determined...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM0ODA

  • #2
    This is handled by userspace FP library nowadays, so the change doesn't really break anything in the long run.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting.

      Please allow me a maybe stupid question.
      Granted that the implementation is not compatible with GPLv2 and the Linux kernel people have to remove it:
      Is it sufficient to "only" provide a patch/commit that removes it from future versions?

      Simply speaking, isn't it the case that I can checkout the "official" Linux git repository,
      move to an older state/Tag and still have the support?

      If so, isn't that still legally problematic?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by entropy View Post
        If so, isn't that still legally problematic?
        IANAL, but I think the answer is yes, but only for people who actually do this. I think having GPL source code in the same repository as non-GPL source code is not a problem, the problem occurs when someone tries to compile it.

        Comment


        • #5
          It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

          The clause:
          USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IS RESTRICTED TO
          PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO CAN AND WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL
          LOSSES, COSTS, OR OTHER PROBLEMS THEY INCUR DUE TO THE SOFTWARE, AND WHO
          FURTHERMORE EFFECTIVELY INDEMNIFY JOHN HAUSER AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER
          SCIENCE INSTITUTE (possibly via similar legal warning) AGAINST ALL LOSSES,
          COSTS, OR OTHER PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THEIR CUSTOMERS AND CLIENTS DUE TO THE
          SOFTWARE.
          In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

          Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
          Last edited by droidhacker; 04-10-2013, 03:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
            IANAL, but I think the answer is yes, but only for people who actually do this. I think having GPL source code in the same repository as non-GPL source code is not a problem, the problem occurs when someone tries to compile it.
            It would actually be when someone tries to distribute that compiled binary - the GPL doesn't kick in if you are just compiling for yourself.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              It would actually be when someone tries to distribute that compiled binary - the GPL doesn't kick in if you are just compiling for yourself.
              If it's really like that, why not keep the code and make it a .config option then?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by entropy View Post
                If it's really like that, why not keep the code and make it a .config option then?
                Because the licensing zealots are loose. Somebody, hurry up and catch them before they can cause any more damage!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

                  The clause:


                  In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

                  Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
                  The GPL also contains the good bits.
                  It's very crappy to say the one you give is the only good one.
                  Forking the GPL to put the PERSONAL indemnification of a specific person and, or organization in it is stupid.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Steal from *BSD?

                    Why not use BSD-licensed code from one of the BSDs that support ARM?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X