lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.
19-Sep-98 19:23 you wrote:
> Khimenko Victor wrote:
>>
>> 19-Sep-98 17:34 you wrote:
>> > Erik Corry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 1998 at 10:31:26PM +0400, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> >> > In <19980919193105.A22160@arbat.com> Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > EC> But you can release a UDI driver simultaneously under two
>> >> > EC> different licenses. So everyone can be happy.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not at all. LGPL will be 100% enough for such purposes.
>> >>
>> >> I see no way of forcing hardware manufacturers to use LGPL.
>> >>
>> >> The only way would seem to be to not put UDI in the official
>> >> kernel, but there are sure to be distributions that put it
>> >> in anyway (Xi graphics will, I would guess) and individuals
>> >> will always be free to do so.
>>
>> > Ummmmm.... That's really easy. 1st case: change the kernel license to
>> > disallow commercial drivers. 2nd case: change the module code to only
>> > load drivers containing the right string in the right place. That
>> > string would of course be a protected certification mark. These are
>> > sort of ugly and rude. Can anyone think of something nicer?
>>
>> This is not really needed. Inclusion of OSD-compiance in USD-certification
>> will be enough :-) Since "Big Boss" (who will sign checks :-) is aware that
>> certified driver is "Good Thing" while non-certified driver is "Bad Thing"
>> (even if he is not aware what's driver is in first place :-)

> It's not a bad idea, but there are a couple of problems with it, in my
> mind. The first one is money. It takes a lot of money to make the
> kinds of advertisements necessary to let the pointy-hairs know about he
> certification and how it is important. Can an appropriate organization
> (LI, SPI, FSF, etc.) get enough money together to support that kind of
> campaign? I doubt it. TV costs thousands of dollars (hundreds of
> thousands?) per _minute_.

Since SCO, Sun and others are not interested in buggy drivers I'm pretty sure
that such companion will be opened anyway. And if OSD-compliance will be added
for certification "without word attached" (i.e. cetified UDI-drivers vs
"conditionally certified" UDI-derivers) it will be enough.

> There's another big thing. Hardware vendors will probably be able to
> talk customers into believing that the certification is really just a
> formality, or unimportant, or politically motivated, or done to make
> money, or whatever, and that it is really insignificant. See how well
> many Win95 programs sell without certification! I suspect a licensing
> change is the way to go, or else possibly a cruel and unusual hack (see
> my message) to keep binary drivers from working in other releases.

Since not all UDI drivers could be open source (I2O drivers could not) this
solution is clearly unacceptable for UDI folks. We could develop some other
"drivers model" but for which reasons ? We already have native linux drivers!
We must push hardware manufacturers to release open source drivers but NOT
force them to do so -- other choices are clearly unappropriate for UDI folks.
If this is not enough for us we must just forgot about UDI at all...

> By the way, what is OSD? And USD?

OSD = Open Source Definition and USD is just mistype (I mean UDI :-)




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site