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 12:14:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:14:45 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:27346 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:14:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:14:44 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Thunder from the hill Cc: Larry McVoy , Karim Yaghmour , Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Dan Kegel , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Christoph Rohland , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Message-ID: <20020525091444.H28795@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Thunder from the hill , Larry McVoy , Karim Yaghmour , Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Dan Kegel , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Christoph Rohland , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020524223950.D22643@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 01:59:10AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote: > I think the point he's tryin' to make is somewhere else than that. There > are lots of companies running embedded devices (oh yes, I can tell ;-), > and as long as it is a) not clear and/or b) impossible by license to use > real time linux w/their licenses, they won't. > > Embedded and real time devices are "The Future" for lots of companies. And > of course they're going to want to sell it. Currently, they have three > ways: > > 1. They try RTAI and don't have any licensing problems, but they are very > unsure about it, since certain people keep telling that RTAI is crap > > 2. They get used to RTLinux, where they are altogether forced to use > either GPL or their license. This isn't exactly a way of choice. > > 3. They go buy another real time os implementation. 4. Contact FSMlabs, ask about licensing costs, compare to #3 and go with #4 if it makes sense. If we were hearing about lots of companies who want to use RT/Linux and have choosen not to do so because of the licensing, there might be cause for concern. I'm sure there are companies who have choosen to skip RT/Linux once they realized it wasn't free, that's too bad, but not the end of the world. In the long run, it's probably good because somebody has to emerge with a business model which will allow them to make enough money to support the RT stuff. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm