> 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?
I love Linux, and a I love that free software has become mildly
successful, but the zealots are hurting both.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
