On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:43:34 -0400, Tim Kynerd wrote: > Yavor Doganov wrote: >> What's far more disturbing is that Linux, that is the word and the >> project that most people associate with "Free Software", contains >> non-free software in its source. The Linux developers consider >> popularity a more important goal than freedom, so this is not >> surprising. > > This is a very serious accusation and one I don't buy without proof. > Since you've made it, I think it's your responsibility to provide that > proof or else withdraw it.
Grep through the source and you'll find a lot of proof. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/08/msg00021.html ,---- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html ---- | The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with | non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device | drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to | be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A | few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a | substantial program in binary is another. | | The presence of these binary-only programs in ``source'' files of | Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question whether | Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL requires | ``complete corresponding source code,'' and a sequence of integers is | not the source code. By the same token, adding such a binary to the | Linux sources violates the GPL. `-------------------------------------------------------------- -- JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
