> They want to help us code something, or code it for us. They offer us
> some hope for drivers released at the same time as new hardware in return.
> This sounds mostly good to me. The main negative is that UDI may cause some
> places to not release hardware specs, since we can use the UDI driver, and
> the "I can't use it on Linux" argument wouldn't hold anymore. Then we may
> be stuck with potentially slow, inefficient drivers. And of course the
> threat of a proliferation of binary-only drivers, which is bad in the whole
> GPL ideology and bad in that it's unknown code, possibly buggy, no chance
> to review it, etc.
To be honest, this UDI initative is scary. For this to work, they MUST
allow fully GPL'd sources. Or they can go stick it where the sun doesn't
shine. Reading the original post seemed to indicate that the major corps
behind this initiative would have full control. That worries me because I
can think of no better backdoor like this for them to delibrately write
crippled drivers for Linux in order to de-rail the whole process and make
BillyShit Gates happy.
Cheers,
Alex.
--- /\_/\ Legalise cannabis now! ( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today! > ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.Check out http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk Linux lo-pc3035a 2.1.120 #24 Tue Sep 8 09:08:48 EDT 1998 i586 unknown
- 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/