Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:14:09 -0500 | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Subject | Latest statements regarding real-time in Linux |
| |
Victor,
I am writing to you today regarding your latest statements about various issues pertaining to Linux's use in real-time applications: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4817784412.html
As you probably remember, the last time this topic was discussed on the LKML, quite a few kernel developers were unaware of the real facts regarding Linux's difficulties of being adopted in the real-time field and the evolution of the various projects providing real-time capabilities in Linux, including RTLinux and RTAI. My CC'ing of the LKML is to make sure that those interested are kept aware of the various developments.
I do not wish to rekindle the May 2002 debate. However, I do ask you to refrain from further harming Linux's adoption in an entire application field by making statements such as those you make in the above-mentioned article.
Specifically, I would like to bring to your attention the following items:
A) Contrary to the characterization you make in the interview, RTAI is licensed under the GPL. Its licensing is clear.
B) The similarity of code between some parts of RTAI and RTLinux traces its origin back to the initial development mailing list exchanges between both development teams, as recognized by your own employees/contractors: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102240777026651&w=2
C) Eben Moglen's statements regarding "Applications" being excluded from the patent are not at all unclear. It is noteworthy, nevertheless, that this is the second time that you find it pertinent to try attacking that exact same statement.
D) You remain true to yourself in making the following ad-hominem comment: "I doubt Adeos avoids the patent - but that's a guess based only on the reliability of people claiming it does." I figure you have two possible choices regarding Adeos: 1) You claim it is subject to the patent: but then you destroy your patent by admitting that their is blatant prior art since Adeos is based entirely on scientific publications published more than one year prior to the preliminary patent filling. 2) You claim it isn't subject to the patent: but then everyone uses Adeos to obtain deterministic response times and you close up shop. Neither of these are realistic choices for you, so you do as you always did before: cast doubts out of thin air and attack the credibility of those making the statements. In case you had not noticed, Adeos' claim of being patent-free was endorsed by quite a few free software and open source organizations (See here for a list: http://lwn.net/Articles/1222/). At various times, including during the LKML discussion following Adeos' release, quite a few individuals have come out to agree with Adeos' claim of being patent free, including Daniel Philipps and Alessandro Rubini. I can understand that you will always find me to be unreliable since I'm not playing to your tune, but you can surely see that questioning the reliability of people like Daniel or Alessandro isn't really the way to go. In other words, if you have real technical reasons you want to present as to why you think Adeos is subject to the patent I'm all ears. Otherwise, please stop spreading FUD and making ad-hominem attacks.
E) In regards to your statement: "Just calling something an application or creating an artificial barrier does not automatically escape the requirements of either the GPL or the Open Patent License." In terms of the "Open Patent License"'s applicability to applications, Eben Moglen's words remain the definitive statement on this issue. As for your statement that the GPL propagates to user-space, then I refer you to the kernel's copyright statement.
E') I think it is fair to say that RTLinux is a derived work of Linux. Hence, the recent discussion regarding the GPL's applicability to various software interacting with the kernel very much applies to RTLinux. So, if the GPL applies to user-space real-time applications, as you say it does, then, to the best of my understanding, RTLinux developers are not allowed to distribute either kernel-module rtlinux apps or user-space rtlinux apps under any other license than the GPL.
I personally find it rather cynical that within the same interview where you try to create as much legal uncertainty as possible regarding Linux's use in real-time applications, you somehow find it to criticize SCO's behavior. But that's probably just my sense of morality being hyper-sensitive. You're in this for the money as I understand it, and business is business.
My personal impressions aside, I appreciate the attention you will bring to the items outlined above.
Respectfully,
Karim Yaghmour -- Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 514-812-4145
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |