On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 21:15 -0700, Thomas Vecchione wrote: > > 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. > Neither do I, really - which is why I did not try to define exactly what a "derived work" is. > 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
