Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion.

[Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi,

Alan Cox wrote:

> Perhaps you should spend your
> time thinking instead of insinuating everyone on the planet who isnt
> working for rtai is a liar ?

I am watching this whole mess already quite some time and I am trying
very hard to make sense out of this. Victor pretends to be the nice guy
here, but if one looks closer, one can see how little respect he has for
the open source community and how much he is only interested in his own
advantage. Alan, believe me that I am not doing such accusation easily
and I'm quite aware that I'm not making myself any friends this way, but
I'm not afraid to speak out what I think. I am thinking very carefully
about this and I am not taking this easy.
Victor denies the RTAI people any clear answers about the license.
Victor refuses to explain the application of the license to the RTAI
situation. Why does he refuses to define ambiguous statements? Why can't
he say whether the license applies to RTAI or not? It wouldn't be any
problem, if the license didn't apply, but if everyone clearly knew that
(what only Victor can say), they could sit together and talk about a
license which is accommodated to RTAI's situation. All Victor had to say
is that the LPGL parts of RTAI make use of the patented process and they
need to talk about a license. The RTAI developers are asking for that
for years without any reaction from Victor. Sorry, but I can't see any
fault from them and I can understand that they get impatient to get
issue resolved.
Alan, what am I supposed to think about this? You should know me a bit
by now, I always accept arguments and I have no problems to admit a
mistake and to apologize for it, but I won't take bullshit.

> Here is some of the press coverage on it
> http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010927S0074

As I said, I didn't found anything on Red Hat's site. I thought it would
be interesting to point out, but in the end it's Red Hat's business.

bye, Roman