J.C. Roberts wrote:
You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a
lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that
be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux
kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU
project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the
outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you
are all one large project working together.
Lumping the FSF, the SFLC, and Linux Kernel developrs all in the
same boat is not fundimentally
different from claiming that there is no difference between OpenBSD,
NetBSD, FreeBSD, Dragonfly,
and on and on and on.
Spend some time on LKML. There are enormous cultural and viewpoint
differences just there.
While the level of acrimony is several notches lower than here, they
are infinitely less monolithic.
Presuming even that Linux Kernel developers speak with one voice
flies in the face of facts.
Despite the fact that Linux uses the GPL, there is more ideological
common ground between OpenBSD and
GNU/FSF/SFLC. While there are distinct differences there are also
some strongly held shared principles.
Linux development is most strongly characterized by pragmatism over
principle from the top down.
To the extent that pragmatism is the defining principle.
The primary offense here was the acts of a few - possibly one, Linux
developer.
To my knowledge nothing done that Theo, Reyk or others on
OpenBSD-Misc are complaining about has
found its way into any public linux source or repository. That was
not the case when the shoe was on the
other foot.
While some - including some important and influential people on
Linux lists have expressed oppinions
that there is nothing wrong with changing Reyk's license, that is
not the same as having accepted or
published infringing code.
It was my understanding that the SFLC had made a specific legal
sugestion that I thought was legal but
disengenuous, but that appears not to be the case. It appears the
SFLC is still working on the matter, so
maligning them (or others) for an oppinion they have not issued is
pretty ethically challenged too.
This whole legalistic who is stealing what from whom debate is
ludicrous anyway.
Both Linux and OpenBSD developers are free to use each others work
as documentation for the hardware in question,
and develop new drivers, firmware, ... that does not infringe. Just
as Reyk's work does not infringe on Atheros,
any sufficiently competent developer (including Atheros, Broadcom,
..) can take Reyk's work and create something new that
does not infringe on Reyk's. Copyright does not grant Atheros an
absolute monopoly in firmware for their hardware, much less
create a similar monopoly for Reyk.
Linux and OpenBSD developer's have two choices.
Strong cooperation: Agree to license their work under terms
acceptable to the each OS.
Or
Weak cooperation: stand aside and watch as developers from the other
OS develop their own drivers/firmware possibly
using your work as a resource - with or without credit.
Even the latter with significant duplication of effort would take
less time than the rhetoric that has been expended on this issue,
or the legal time the SFLC is likely to spend.
One of the central features - atleast as I perceived it of FOSS has
been that proprietary work, and legal roadblocks are obstacles
to program around.
--
Dave Lynch DLA Systems
Software Development: Embedded Linux
717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net
fax: 1.253.369.9244 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too
numerous to list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of
genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
Albert Einstein
