On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +0000, Jeff Rollin wrote:
| On 14/02/07, Han Boetes wrote:
| >
| > Artur Grabowski wrote:
| > > "Stephan A. Rickauer" 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...
