Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.
David Feuer (feuer@his.com)
Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:23:22 -0400
Khimenko Victor wrote:
>
> 19-Sep-98 17:34 you wrote:
> > Erik Corry wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 1998 at 10:31:26PM +0400, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> >> > In <19980919193105.A22160@arbat.com> Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > EC> But you can release a UDI driver simultaneously under two
> >> > EC> different licenses. So everyone can be happy.
> >> >
> >> > Not at all. LGPL will be 100% enough for such purposes.
> >>
> >> I see no way of forcing hardware manufacturers to use LGPL.
> >>
> >> The only way would seem to be to not put UDI in the official
> >> kernel, but there are sure to be distributions that put it
> >> in anyway (Xi graphics will, I would guess) and individuals
> >> will always be free to do so.
>
> > Ummmmm.... That's really easy. 1st case: change the kernel license to
> > disallow commercial drivers. 2nd case: change the module code to only
> > load drivers containing the right string in the right place. That
> > string would of course be a protected certification mark. These are
> > sort of ugly and rude. Can anyone think of something nicer?
>
> This is not really needed. Inclusion of OSD-compiance in USD-certification
> will be enough :-) Since "Big Boss" (who will sign checks :-) is aware that
> certified driver is "Good Thing" while non-certified driver is "Bad Thing"
> (even if he is not aware what's driver is in first place :-)
It's not a bad idea, but there are a couple of problems with it, in my
mind. The first one is money. It takes a lot of money to make the
kinds of advertisements necessary to let the pointy-hairs know about he
certification and how it is important. Can an appropriate organization
(LI, SPI, FSF, etc.) get enough money together to support that kind of
campaign? I doubt it. TV costs thousands of dollars (hundreds of
thousands?) per _minute_.
There's another big thing. Hardware vendors will probably be able to
talk customers into believing that the certification is really just a
formality, or unimportant, or politically motivated, or done to make
money, or whatever, and that it is really insignificant. See how well
many Win95 programs sell without certification! I suspect a licensing
change is the way to go, or else possibly a cruel and unusual hack (see
my message) to keep binary drivers from working in other releases.
By the way, what is OSD? And USD?
--
Remove "NOSPAM" to reply.
______________________________
/ David Feuer \
| dfeuer@NOSPAMbinx.mbhs.edu |
| feuer@NOSPAMhis.com |
| daf@morseNOSPAM.usno.navy.mil|
\ david@NOSPAMfeuer.his.com /
-----------------------------
-
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/