BK> True. Which is why we must be careful if we do this. But it's possible to
BK> go wrong by being *too* paranoid as well as by being not paranoid enough.
BK> The point is: *if* we decide to become involved with UDI, it must be with
BK> the understanding that we, too, have needs and objectives and that our
BK> involvement is conditional on those needs and objectives being met by the
BK> other participants.
Quiestion is: how much Linux community must be paid (not in $$ of course :-) ?
IMO reasonable price is inclusion of LGPL license in UDI certifiation
requirements. Hardware manufacturers still could then produce non-certified
binary-only drivers but they are will be non-certified and "non-certified
driver" is clearly not "Good Thing" even for Joe Average... May be I'm wrong
and this is to much (or even to small) price but IMO it's good starting point...
Commercial Unix'es will be unable to steal work due LGPL but will not have
any problems with UDI drivers since linking of LGPL code with closed-source is
allowed. And hardware manufacturers will have choice: they could produce
non-certified binary-only drivers (and "non-certified" is "Bad Thing" not
only for Joe Average, but also for company "Big Boss"es -- that's the point).
If some technology could not be released in Open Source form (I2O driver :-))
then ALL drivers for this technology will be non-certified (may be some term
like "conditionally certified" could be used in such cases) but for other
technologies manufacturers who will release sources (or will release specs and
got community-written drivers :-) will be able to add one more certifiation
mark on box (and hardware manufacturers like certification marks :-))
-
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/