Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
18 Sep 1998 15:42:42 -0700


In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.980918132620.223B-100000@lo-pc3035a>,
Alex Buell <alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
>
>> 1. Give, with no strings attached, the UNIX source code to FSF aka RMS.
>> 2. Give, with no strings attached, the UNIX source code to Linux
>> International.
>>
>> Any of the above scenarios would surely have major impacts on Microsoft,
>> and Bill Gates.
>
>You've forgotten that Micro$haft owns SCO. I believe this is what Bill
>Gates is really up to; trying to tie us up with useless UDI junk and and
>benefit from it at our expense.
>
>So, personally, it's thumbs down on this one. Why don't *we* counter with
>our own GPL'd unified driver interface?

Because it's stupid, divisive, and it sends a very strong signal to
the world that Linux will not tolerate any third-party development
efforts.

If the Linux device driver interface is reworked to follow UDI, the
Linux community wins. Nobody will lose rights to their GPLed
modules, and we'll get driver support for devices that come from
vendors who don't care to develop and release code for Linux.

If a project will make Unix a more viable alternative to the other
operating systems, it's A Good Thing even if it comes from Redmond,
Washington. What's important is that Unix Wins, not that the Other
Unices Lose[1].

____
david parsons \bi/ [1: I know it's traditional for Unix to snatch
\/ defeat from the jaws of victory, but I'm
not willing to retire yet.]

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/