On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:06PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +0000, Jeff Rollin wrote:
> | 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?
> 
> When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in
> the end, no one profits.
> 
> Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I
> was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How
> does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the
> two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL...

oh come fucking on!
do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again!
cu
-- 
    paranoic mickey       (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)

Reply via email to