Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:36:28 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: Linux, UDI and SCO. |
| |
In <19980919234558.A32537@arbat.com> Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com) wrote: EC> On Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 01:45:30AM +0400, Khimenko Victor wrote: >> In <19980919223003.A29904@arbat.com> Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com) wrote: >> EC> On Sat, Sep 19, 1998 at 11:32:06PM +0400, Khimenko Victor wrote: >> >> In <19980919203721.A25556@arbat.com> Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com) wrote: >> >> EC> 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. >> >> >> >> EC> I see no way of forcing hardware manufacturers to use LGPL. >> >> >> >> Of course this is impossible. But if requirements for LGPL will be included >> >> in "UDI certification" process then most (but of course not all) hardware >> >> manufacturers will use LGPL. >> >> EC> Get real! >> >> I'm serious. ABSOLUTELY serious. UDI folks want help from Linux community, >> right ?
EC> Not really. UDI can go ahead without the help of the Linux EC> kernel developers. SCO are writing the UDI code for the EC> kernel, and if it is not accepted then they can just ask EC> vendors and users to patch the kernel themselves.
SCO is not needed UDI support for Linux at all :-) They need linux folks to help them with drivers :-) Linux folks could help them but this help will be clearly not unconditional. May be price, offered below is to much or to small but IMO it's good starting point...
>> Linux community myst be paid! The only appropriate currency here is >> source code. And I'm pretty sure that it's not possible: for example our >> EtherJet Aptiva's uses GPL'ed drivers drom IBM for 1.5 years ! LONG before >> IBM showed support for Linux at all... This driver is included in 2.1.1xx... >> If manufacturer want produce binary-only UDI driver he is free to do so. But >> this driver will not be certified :-)) That's all. Or UDI folks could take
EC> What makes you think they will care about certification? And EC> you couldn't call it UDI certification, because UDI is cross- EC> platform, so it can't include Linux-only requirements.
LGPL is NOT required for Linux. You could use binary-only driver with Linux just now -- without UDI help. LGPL requirements for certification will be pay for support of UDI by Linux community. May be it's to much -- UDI folks could offer lesser price :-)) Auction is not over :-))
>> Linux source codes and do anything with them (not vialationg GPL copiright, of >> course :-). WITHOUT help from Linux community. Linuxers are not communists. >> This is meritocracy :-) We must be paid for our help :-) They could make two >> certification types: OSS-certified and simple certified. No problem. But EACH >> AND EVERY Joe Avarage must be warned about danger of binry-only drivers!
EC> Well we can do that, but we cannot force anyone to use EC> the LGPL.
We could not. UDI folks could. If they want :-)) Of course even after this any hardware manufacturer could make non-certified binary-only driver but non-certified driver is definitely not "Good Thing" even for Joe Average...
- 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/
| |