Ori,
Most probably, they are afraid of support issues. In the past I had hard
time to convince
management of large companies I was working for to open the sources
under GPL for
improving quality and customer base support. And every time the main
argument of theirs
was support. They pretend that this instant they'll publish the code the
whole world come
rushing to them demanding support for free. Showing them excerpts from
GPL and disclaimers
"comes with no support whatsoever" does preciously little.
The real reason is, they always need a neck to strangle. In Windoze
world all is commercial,
everywhere there's CEO to talk to and to put pressure on. In the free
world things are different
and that's scares crap out of them. If company loses sales, that is
almost "invisible" and there's
always a possibility to invent a gozillion of "objective" reasons why
and to cover manager's ass.
But if something arises from the code released to the public, the
manager who made the decision
to open it will have no cover and nobody will count improved business in
his/her favor, marketing
will take the credit to itself by that time. That's why it's so hard.
But IMHO that's not the reason to hide and play someone you're not, be
it charity director or
volunteer.
Vitaly.
Ori Idan wrote:
I don't think the issue is Linux, the issue is why TI decided to keep
some of the protocols secret?
The fact that they do not disclose (what other vendors disclose) forces
them to write the software on their own and since they do not have
unlimited resources, they choose to write for windows as it seems that
most cross development is still done on windows.
In my opinion, they loose business this way.
I would like to know the reason for such decisions.
