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

Kurt Wall
2002-05-25T17:46:33Z

{CCs trimmed]

Scribbling feverishly on May 25, Karim Yaghmour managed to emit:
>
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 4. Contact FSMlabs, ask about licensing costs, compare to #3 and go with
> > #4 if it makes sense.
>
> Many people have said this before and I will say it again: Linux is
> fine as an open-source/free-software rtos, but as a non-free rtos it
> has no chance in front of the competition.

Sorry, I must have lost track of this argument. I thought the point of
contention was the RTLinux patent, which seems pretty clear on the key
issue: if your stuff is GPL, we're GPL; if you make money, we want a slice
of the pie. Now it almost sounds like you're telling us that the real
issue is that you can't make your own Linux-as-nonfree-rtos. Well, I'm not
very smart, so maybe I've misunderstood.

> You can dimiss those who haven't chosen #4 as much as you want and
> find all the reasons to justify your dismissal. It remains that the
> embedded/rt market is closed to Linux because of the current situation.

That dog won't hunt. There are more players in the Linux embedded/RT space
than RTAI and RTLinux, which you have conveniently overlooked throughout
this entire thread. Maybe at this time none of them are ready for $300
IPO pops, but you can't make the argument that "RT is closed to Linux"
when your only data points are RTAI and RTLinux.

Kurt
--
So, what's with this guy Gideon, anyway? And why can't he ever
remember his Bible?