Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

[v j]

On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 21:16 -0800, v j wrote:
> > This is in reference to the following thread:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
> >
> > I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
> > popular in the embedded space. We (an embedded vendor) chose Linux 3
> > years back because of its lack of royalty model, robustness and
> > availability of infinite number of open-source tools.
>
>
> I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding... Linux is not royalty
> free. Just the royalty is not in the form of cash, but in the form of
> having to give your improvements back to the open source world.

Sure. But this is not legally binding.

> (this is paraphrasing the intent of the GPL basically, you can argue for
> hours if drivers are separate or improvements, and I'm not interested in
> that debate, it has been debated to death before and only lawyers will
> in the end be able to settle that on a case by case basis).
>
> If your mindset is "how much can I take take take without giving back
> back back" then personally I think you're sort of acting like a parasite
> in this context....

Ok so are thousands of others who are using Linux as their OS of
choice in embedded systems. They are not doing this because they are
eager to give back back. They are doing it because Linux provides
compelling reasons for them to choose it. They could have very well
chosen VxWorks or OSE too. They chose not to, but not because they
were unwilling to be a parasite.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/