Chase, On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Chase Venters wrote: > > It depends on what you mean by "pure-BSD". If you're talking about the > 4-clause license with the advertising clause, then you are correct. Otherwise > (IANAL) but my understanding is that BSD code can even be relicensed GPL by a > third party contribution (though it is perhaps kind to ask for relicensing > permission anyway).
Yes, and the long list of open source licenses listed on the FSF website as incompatible with the GPL. > Then would offering a 'stable API in disguise' not be a disaster and an > irritation to these people? If the kernel doesn't specify that an in-kernel > interface is stable, then there is no reason to expect it to be. It might not > change, but there won't be too much sympathy for out-of-tree users if it > does. The kernel comes with big warnings about the lack of a stable API for a > reason. In fact most core kernel facilities (spin lock, memory caches, character and block device interface, even core file system) have had a very stable API (way back to early 2.4 kernels). An in fact most of them are derived from some variant or precursor to UNIX. For example, memory caches are a Sun Solaris concept. It is the lack of an ABI that is most frustrating to these users. > > > Another thing to consider is that the first step for many organizations in > > opening a driver under GPL is to release a proprietary module that at least > > first works. > > If the driver is an old-tech Linux port, then it seems there isn't too much > stopping them from doing this today (aside from the fact that some people > think proprietary modules are murky anyway). In this case, we don't want a > stable API/ABI, because then we leave them with little incentive to open the > code. "old-tech"? No, these are high-tech drivers supported by commercial RTOS, from which Linux stands to benefit. And, by not allowing these organizations to take the first step (generate a workable Linux driver) such a policy provides them little incentive to ever move the driver to Linux, and cuts them off from opening it. I don't think that it is fair to say that an unstable API/ABI, in of itself, provides an incentive to open an existing proprietary driver. > We're not as perfect as I wish we were. But the lack of stable API (dead > horse) is something that is fairly well established and understood. I think > most people feel that the cost-benefit analysis, for Linux anyway, strongly > favors no stable API. Well, the lack of a stable ABI is well known. The API is largely stable (but not sacrosanctly so) for the major reason that changing it within a large code base is difficult and error prone at best. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
