On 14/02/07, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Artur Grabowski wrote: > > "Stephan A. Rickauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has > > > just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the > > > result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, > > > companies will be even less motivated to release programming > > > documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you > > > simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications > > > with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but > > > GPL code only. > > > > Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole > > point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the > > GPL. Duh. > > Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this > at all. > > This deal is meant to divide. >
And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue contributing to NetBSD, is it? And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, what's that? Oh, we don't? Precisely Jeff.
