Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

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

  • smitty3268
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • phoronix
    started a topic "Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

    "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
Working...
X