On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> > And then the user want to upgrade the 2.0 kernel that shipped with this
> > box although the company that made the hardware went bankrupt some years
> > ago.
> >
> > If the user has the source of the driver, he can port the driver or hire
> > someone to port the driver (this "obscure piece of hardware" might also
> > be an expensive piece of hardware).
>
> So what? Sure, GPL'd drivers are easier for an end-user in that case.
> What does that have to do with law? What about what's better for the
> company that made the device? Should NVIDIA be forced to give up their
> secrets to all their competitors because some over zealous developers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> say so? Should the end-users of the current drivers be forced to lose
^^^^^^^
> out on features such as sysfs and udev compatability?
Because otherwise they are violating someone else's copyright?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
