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 18:05:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:05:44 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:57555 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:05:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:05:42 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Larry McVoy , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtai@rtai.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Message-ID: <20020525150542.B17889@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Wolfgang Denk , Larry McVoy , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtai@rtai.org In-Reply-To: <20020525143333.A17889@work.bitmover.com> <20020525215547.6912411972@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 > > 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". 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. 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. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm