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 14:02:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:02:07 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:59090 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:02:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 11:02:08 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Message-ID: <20020525110208.A15969@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Wolfgang Denk , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020525175035.3580211972@denx.denx.de> 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 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 "application" needs to use the RT/Linux patent in order to work, it either has to buy a license or be GPLed. 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. 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 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. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm