> > All of the options do that. IMHO, the best arangment might be 2b: the
> > source is relesed, under GPL plus the stipulation that the driver cannot be
> > modified for the purpose of using it with another vendor's problems
>
> Myself I wouldn't encourage selfishness.
Neither would I, but partial selfishness is better then utter selfishness.
> Forbidding that the source
> be used to benefit other drivers makes the world poorer, and
Not other drivers, but drivers for "the competition's" products.
> encourages the same selfishness among the competition. If, on the
> other hand, the company were to _emphasise_ that the source can be
> freely used by competitors, then they could encourage cooperation and
> mutual aid, and everyone is richer.
But, the sad truth is that people sharing dosn't push others to share alike,
but just gives them somthing for nothing. They reap your work by also being
able to say that Linux is supported. Myself, I would far prefer a straight
GPL -- those at Olicom probably would see differently. I'm just trying to
offer a happy medium.
-=- James Mastros
-- "I'd feel worse if it was the first time. I'd feel better if it was the last." -=- "(from some Niven book, doubtless not original there)" (qtd. by Chris Smith)- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu