* Kendall Bennett said:
> Chuck Mead <chuck@moongroup.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Amen to Alan's comments but to Kendall... you've spanned the
> > heights of incredibility here! You have Linux kernel source code
> > which is freely available but you want the kernel folk to
> > completely revamp their development program/path to suit your own
> > needs?=20
[snip]=20
> They flatly refused and said they would not support anything that=20
> will allow for binary portable modules. So I will do this for our own=20
because there is *no* reason to support it. Such code would be a serious
bloat of the kernel, point. *You* as the vendor can take care of it all on
your own without even touching the kernel.
[snip]
> However I am upset by the notion that the GPL nature of the Linux=20
> kernel source can and is being used to force hardware vendors to=20
> release Open Sourcce drivers because they have no other option. Not=20
> because another option is not feasible, but because the core=20
> developers of Linux want to lock our proprietry solutions.
Why there's no other option? You just refuse to look at the other
possibilities, that's all. You refuse to take advantage of the OpenSource
model.
marek
--Qrgsu6vtpU/OV/zm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEAREBAAYFAjhLfS4ACgkQq3909GIf5uoSxACfesgg7+i6HfdYguxsYiq4QJE+
tccAn0Y9dVMpedCw+dG/zEVZRrvv7Cko
=z0e1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Qrgsu6vtpU/OV/zm--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/