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

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:52:19PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > I've spoken with Victor about this topic a few times and while I will not
> > speak for him in specifics, I will say he's equally unthrilled with a lot
> > of what gones on.  It's tiresome.
> 
> There is, however, some differences between your situations. I can
> rewrite a software that does similar things as yours and sell it
> or give it away using whichever license I like. I can't write a similar
> software to Victor's and sell it or give it away using whichever
> license I like.

A couple of points.  If you are going to rewrite, then you should rewrite.
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"
and the guy who did that work freely admitted that it was a fork of the 
RT/Linux source base?

Second, that's what patents are all about, it's about protecting your
investment.  I think you should get used to dual use licensing of patents,
I expect to see a lot more of this as people start to realize that giving
away the software and hoping that people will magically give you money
just doesn't work.  There are a lot of people who value free software, 
want to support it, and will do so if it is really free.  On the other
hand, as soon as money enters the equation, the rules will change and
you're just going to have to deal with that.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm