On 5/27/2010 2:06 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, I don't understand what you wrote. How does Linux make it
>>> "difficult to impossible"? It's an o/s, with POSIX calls, just like all
>>> the other unices. It's not M$, and it's not Apple... so is being neither
>>> making it hard?
>>
>> For one thing, the license terms do not permit including software with
>> differing terms (hence no zfs, etc. even though source is freely
>
> Huh? Are you saying all distros? There are plenty of repositories with
> directories named "nonfree". It's Linux, you can choose the repositories
> you pull from. CentOS is slightly different, since it's what RedHat
> chooses, but you can always add to it.
Those are for things that are separate programs, not something that
becomes part of the kernel (or any other thing with a gpl'd component).
Drivers are sort of a gray area. There's an argument that they use the
kernel interfaces and another that they become part of the kernel.
>> available), and for another the interfaces keep changing so binaries
>> can't be expected to work after updates.
>
> They do? Then why can I run a current version (other than worrying about
> twinview) of any Linux video driver on a video card that's years old. The
> only thing I see changing that way are the hardware manufacturers.
The drivers included as part of the kernel are recompiled to match each
version. If the owner of the driver code doesn't want to release the
source under the GPL or can't because some sub-component is under 3rd
party control or different existing license, the binary may or may not
work.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
