Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

[Erwin Rol <erwin@muffin.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3651 bytes --]

On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:05, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Whether that is true or not I don't know.  But I do know that if all the
> > > stuff was GPLed, then you are safe no matter what, right?  In other words,
> > > there is a path you can take which makes it safe.  And according to all the
> > > RTAI people, that path should be completely acceptable, they all are quick
> > > to tell you that everything they do (now) is GPLed and that's how they want
> > > it.  If that's true, no worries.  I suspect the reality is that some/most
> > > of the code is GPLed but there is some critical chunk that is not GPLed 
> >                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > and you don't get source and that's the revenue stream.  If I'm wrong, the
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > RTAI folks have nothing to worry about.
> > 
> > We do have to worry something about: people like  you  who  not  only
> > spread FUD, but also lies and insults.
> 
> Hey, I said "I suspect".  

Well you suspected wrong. And even before you made that statement
several developers explained that they make money in a other way than
via RTAI, and others like myself told you they just code RTAI in their
spare time. So the statement is pure FUD, especialy since the whole RTAI
sources are available on the website, and helll you can even follow
every little change in the CVS, no critical chunks missing.

> You can scream all you want but if the facts are
> that the patent license allows 100% GPLed stuff for free, and you are saying
> that it is all 100% GPLed, and yet you continue to complain, what conclusion
> would you like people to draw?  I'm pointing out the obvious one.

When things don't apply to one self in person it doesn't mean you should
not care about them. RTAI is free software under the GPL, but that does
not mean we want to force the users of RTAI to also use the GPL, and
with the binary module exception of the kernel and the LXRT for
userspace we gave them the freedom to choose a license of their own. The
patent takes this freedom away, as patents always take freedoms away. 

> 
> It's as if FSMlabs had a patent on colors and they said anyone using green
> and nothing but green is OK, no charge.  And there was a group of people
> who swear up and down that all they do is green yet they continue to complain
> about the patent.  If you were watching that, wouldn't you wonder if they
> were telling you the whole truth?
> 
> Let's review:
>     - we all agree that one possible way to guarentee that you are not in
>       violation of the free use license for the RTL patent is if 100% of
>       the code is GPLed, right?
>     - you and the other RTAI guys swear up and down that it is all GPLed.
> 
> So what's the problem?
> 
> > Larry, I consider this a personal insult, and hereby request you  (1)
> > to withdraw this statement in public and (2) to apologize to the RTAI
> > comunity for it.
> 
> Show me where I've done anything worth apologizing for and I'll consider it.
> Apologizing for pointing out the obvious is not my style.

Maybe you should try it some time, you know what they say about ppl that
dare to admit they are wrong.

- Erwin

> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
> -
> 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/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]