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 19:55:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 19:55:02 -0400 Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.83]:33474 "EHLO mailout07.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 19:55:00 -0400 To: Larry McVoy Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtai@rtai.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 16:10:34 PDT." <20020525161034.L28795@work.bitmover.com> Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 01:54:37 +0200 Message-Id: <20020525235442.CFB3511972@denx.denx.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20020525161034.L28795@work.bitmover.com> Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > > I'm told, and I've seen, that there substantial parts of RT/Linux in the > > > > RTAI source base. Isn't it true that RTAI used to be called "my-rtai" > > > > Can you please quote any such "substantial parts of RT/Linux in the > > RTAI source"? > > Well, since you asked, how about you just go diff the include directories > of the two source bases. That's a wonderful place to start. Anyone who Larry, you know EXACTLY why I won't do this: I don't want to waste my time. > spends 5 minutes in there will see that RTAI is derived from RTL. Look at Nobody EVER denied this. > the definition of the RT task struct, it's identical. Look at the fifo.h > file, big chunks of it are identical. Another fun thing is to just want Ummm.... that's interface definitions, right? That's no code. This is probably not "substantial parts of RT/Linux", or is it? > the directory structure of the two source trees, more clues that it is > RTL derived. It's all been pushed around a lot but I'm not sure you can Stop! Let's keep this straight. NOBODY ever denied that RT-Linux came first, and RTAI used it as a starting point. But you claimed that there are "substantial parts of RT/Linux in the RTAI source". Where ?!?! > Furthermore, look at this: > > rtai-24.1.9/COPYING > The intent of RTAI developers is to make the code that we write > to be widely useful and that it can be copied and incorporated > into other works, including libraries. In addition, we wish > to make it explicitly clear that linking proprietary code with > RTAI is an acceptible use -- for these reasons, we have chosen > the LGPL as the distribution license. > > However, at the current time, RTAI contains portions that are > derived from GPL code, so if you are in a situation where the > difference between GPL and LGPL is an issue, please ask. > > So which is it? GPL or LGPL? I thought you guys said you made it > clear that it was GPLed. If you were really interested, you could read http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2899063844.html The core is under GPL, and additional packages are under LGPL. Yes. Any problem? Are you worried that any Linux distribution of your choice is not completely covered by GPL? That there are LGPLed libraries and things like that? > Anyway, you can jump up and down until you are blue in the face, it's > absolutely obvious to anyone who looks that the RTAI stuff is derived > from the RTL stuff. Yeah, sure, it's evolved, but it's the same source > base and evolving it does not invalidate their license. The COPYING Item: it's derived - correct. Nobody ever denied. Item: it's evolved - correct. In fact, in many aspects it's much more advanced; you find many features in RTAI that are not available in RT-Linux (at least in the GPLed versions - don't know what they are selling to thier customers). And you find an active community of developers for RTAI, which RT-Linux seems not to have any more. And the RTAI mailing list is open for everyone, there are no censoring filters installed. > file in the *current* RTAI release is illegal. You can't say "Well, Please explain? > there is some GPL stuff in here, but we're releasing under the LGPL" You can release some stuff onder one license, other stuff under a second license, and yet other stuff onder a third license. Is that too difficult for you to understand? > just because you feel like it. Didn't you guys repeatedly state that > it was GPL, not LGPL? And is it? Not according to the download. You don't want to understand. Hell, you must be SCARED that there are libraries in your GNU/Linux system that are under LGPL... Just for the record: you claimed there was "substantial parts of RT/Linux in the RTAI source"; when challenged to provide examples, you tried to evade several times; finally, you fell back to the "but it's derived from RTL", which nobody ever denied. That's the old strategy of FUD. What a waste of time. Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de "He was so narrow minded he could see through a keyhole with both eyes ..."