Jim Cornette wrote:
Except that it doesn't work with a lot of hardware. And the engineers
designing the hardware and writing the drivers for other OS versions
are probably the best qualified to write and maintain the Linux
drivers too. They probably would also be the most motivated if the
driver interface was stable so they didn't have to re-do it all the time.
I agree that the provider would be the best source for providing the
best driver for their product. I do think that input from actual users
and coders outside the provider could improve performance of drivers to
a greater degree than closing up the source since Linux changes so
frequently.
There's this great programming concept called an 'interface' that
popular operating systems have used successfully to allow different sets
of people to write components separately that continue to interoperate
across different revisions of each. Typically, projects don't get these
exactly right the first time but after a few revisions they understand
all the requirements and can stop making frequent changes. How long has
Linux been around now?
> DRM is key for Microsoft in my opinion.
Microsoft thinks there is a demand for DRM so they provide it - it
isn't something useful on its own. Personally I think that demand
will go away by itself except for rental-type distribution models when
customers realize how limiting it is and the content suppliers that
thought it would sell find out otherwise - and customers should
ultimately decide these things.
I hope your ideal that the consumer will prevail and Windows will back
off from such practices. A user should not be so limited in using their
own computers.
What users accept as limitations should be based on having choices and
full disclosure of the implications. Operating systems and technology
providers should not be taking away any of these choices from you. A
very low cost rental model based on content that expires might be
perfectly acceptable to a lot of people and if so, we'd all be better
off if the ability to handle such content worked across many platforms
instead of forcing users to buy and run only the platform that handles
their desired content. If consumers find the price/value acceptable for
content with long-term DRM, that's OK too, but I think it will be too
cumbersome and fail on its own - especially given any competition. But
the thing that should make it fail is a better alternative, not someone
ranting against the concept or adding restrictions to other licensing terms.
The practical issue is not the omission of the functional parts with
legal restrictions, it is the fact that the GPL prohibits others from
obtaining the legal rights to distribute these missing parts,
combining them and offering a fully functional product.
This probably needs addressed so the items would be more distributable
and less in need of legal council after some arbitrary solution is
reached. I see this battle going on for a long time and without
resolution though.
This is inherent in the GPL without clear interface boundaries. If we
had a clean definition of what can add value and capabilities to the
kernel without the possibility of being considered a derived work under
copyright law everyone would be able to cooperate to the extent needed
to compete with operating systems that don't have this problem. There
is a similar situation for every work that contains GPL'd components but
needs additional plugins to handle different content or situations. As
things stand there is no clearly legal way to provide all the necessary
pieces together.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
