> >You can not go after people for patches.
> >there is no GPL issue. Upon Microsoft's adpotion of the model they will
> of course you can. Just don't release a patch but grab the driver
> you're patching against (which is GPL), add your modifications and
> release your driver with full task file access as a complete package
> (including the full .c and .h files) under GPL which is compilant with
> the available license. I think you can even do this with a patch. But
> then again it is your call to add or name a license.
> It is your code. You can put it under every license you want. You can
> even put it under the "no white male over 28 years and left handed is
> allowed to use this code unless he types it into the keyboard with
> only his left hand and the right hand tied behind his back"
> license. If is, after all, _YOUR WORK_ and you can choose to license
> it in every way that you want.
> There are even countries (like Germany) where you CAN'T give up your
> copyright and put things into public domain. There is no such thing as
> public domain here. You _always_ keep a certain copyright until
> someone else assumes responsibility. It is for sueing people over
> here. :-)
> >Linux rejected the code because it does not understand nor does anyone
> >have the desire to learn what it does. Since it is not in the kernel
> Neither "Linux" rejected your code (may be Linu_s_ did) nor was it
> rejected because no one understood it (you have a big ego to say
> that. I would think that most of the developers here are able to
> understand what your code does. There is no real magic in it) but
> because there is an effort to stabilize and release 2.4. And, as Alan
> said, sometimes things just miss deadlines. You don't keep introducing
> new variables if you want to stabilize things. The existing IDE driver
> works fine for normal operations so it was kept. I would bet much that
> your IDE driver will be one of the first things included once 2.5 is
> opened up.
> Until then, nothing stops you from releasing patches against official
> 2.2 and 2.4 releases. I'm sure that many people will use it and SuSE
> will put it into its kernel (they put everything they can find on the
> net into their kernel :-) ). I will use it as I really enjoy the new
> features for IDE under 2.2. But not on my business-critical machines
> but on my Workstation and my machine at home.
> >be years ahead of Linux. FreeBSD does something similar and I expect them
> >to soon to begin laughing at us for being stupid.
> Andre, it took me a while to realize that the best thing to cope with
> "FreeBSD will laugh at us" to look onto the installed server and user
> base and then to realize that BSD was years before Linux and failed
> where Linux succeeded. And Linux did not succeed because it was aimed
> "at the server market" or "at the end user" but because there is a
> bunch of people _that_ _do_ _not_ _care_ _at_ _all_ about the
> "marketability" of a feature but for the correct solution. As long as
> decisions in the kernel are made because of good and bad taste, I'm
> not at all afraid for Linux.
> "They" came to Linux. Not vice versa. And "they" did not come just
> because Linux is good. But because the alternatives are worse. And are
> not improving. Just ask yourself why there was no such rave about the
> release of the 4.4BSD code, the first FreeBSD and the first OpenBSD
> release. It is not because their code is bad. But they have no cute
> mascot as Tux and no all-famous benevolent dictator from Finland. :-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST