On 12/18/2016 07:16 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Thankfully the kernel seems to have sane management; as long as Linus is >> around, anyway. Just recently AMD had some of their code rejected, so >> with a vigilant-enough team, you can effectively protect your project >> from monied interests (be it poor code or an attempt to manipulate). Now >> picture what might have happened if AMD was employing Linus or had some >> other sort of contract. (For the record, I use an AMD CPU and like it; >> they just happened to be the most recent corporation who's rejected code >> popped on my radar. No bias intended.) >> > > I think this is an oversimplification of the issues involved in the > AMD situation, which as with so many of these things people just > jumped on picking sides. And I think what has gotten lost is an issue > that actually comes up somewhat often in FOSS. > > [snip] >
Thanks for sharing more details about what happened, but those details were irrelevant to the point I was making. I focused on the fact it was rejected, despite being corporate code. The reasoning, in this conversation, isn't important. It was an example of a project (the kernel) that focuses more on quality than on the economic origin of the code. That's it, no subtext. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
