From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:36:45 -0400 Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.81]:11678 "EHLO mailout03.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:36:43 -0400 To: Larry McVoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 May 2002 11:02:08 PDT." <20020525110208.A15969@work.bitmover.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:26:12 +0200 Message-Id: <20020525182617.D627E11972@denx.denx.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20020525110208.A15969@work.bitmover.com> you wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:50:30PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > I do like it very much when all code I write is GPLed, but there are > > situations where a there are good reasons for some application code > > to remain closed. > > Yeah, like you're trying to make money. Which is fine. But if that No. Actually this is _NOT_ my concern. I get payed for the software I develop no matter if it's free software or propretary stuff, so from the monetary point of view I don't have to care. > "application" needs to use the RT/Linux patent in order to work, it > either has to buy a license or be GPLed. But this is an ADDITIONAL restriction, which violates the GPL, which is the base of the RTL code, or isn't it? > It's somewhat two faced that the protesters here are arguing that > everything has to be free in order for Linux to be used as a RT platform, > but then come back and complain that the FSMlabs patent says everything > has to be free if you don't want to pay. What they say (in public), and what they actually do, are different things. > Maybe Victor should have used a different model: if no money changes hands, > then it's free to use the patent, if money changes hand, FSMlabs wants a Define "if money changes hand". Let's say I develop a smart controller software for disk drives, and I give it (maybe for money, maybe for free, maybe under GPL or not) to IBM and Maxtor and Seagate. The disk manufacturers make modifications to the code, and embed it into their disk drives. Then they sell the drives to Dell and HP and ... Those sell PCs to many, many vendors, who sell the PCs to you and men and ... > cut. I think that was the intent, but as with all things, it's hard to > state that clearly in a legal document. If that was the intent, I support > it, I think it's perfectly reasonable. If that was the case, Victor should have been able to explain his intentions to anybody in public. Why did he never do that? But spread FUD instead? Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234