10 Jun
2006
10 Jun
'06
1:31 a.m.
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 21:15 -0700, Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Neither do I, really - which is why I did not try to define exactly what
a "derived work" is.
Well, it's
not really a matter of opinion, I'm just stating what the GPL
requires. In order for this to change you'd have to relicense the
kernel.
Not saying it was a matter of opinion, I was stating my opinion on the
matter. Honestly I don't know the GPL good enough to argue it with ya
anyways I don't think, thus I was taking your word on it and stating my
opinion in as far as the current situation and what it does to business.
Don't get me wrong though, I am not against open
source, I believe in it
fully, but I don't necessarily blame others for trying to keep things
closed to make a bit of money, to a certain extent, though eventually I
reach a point where it goes to far.
There are at least three solutions I know of that don't violate the GPL
- put the sensitive IP in the firmware, do it in userspace, or make your
Linux driver a GPL wrapper around the same binary blob your Windows
driver uses.
Unfortunately it's quite common these days for companies to blatantly
violate the GPL and just develop closed Linux drivers.
In as far as hardware patents... You are familiar
with Behringer I
believe, how many times have they blatantly taken someone else's idea,
and re manufactured it with no R+D and cheaper components? I can
definitely see why some people might be a bit edgy over things like that.
Yeah it's unfortunate. Maybe the rise of these cheap knockoffs is what
drove a company like Creative, who were one of the first to open their
drivers in the mid 1990s, to their current position of not releasing any
hardware specs or Linux drivers at all.
IIRC Behringer is careful not to infringe patents - they just copy
things that can't be copyrighted or patented like a circuit board
layout. But I'm not really an expert.
Lee