Re: New sound maintainer?
Tyson D Sawyer (tyson@rwii.com)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:58:58 -0400
> In linux.dev.kernel, article <199604221913.PAA24445@zaphod.caz.ny.us>,
> Buddha Buck <phaedrus@dreamscape.com> writes:
> >
> > >From what I remember, this part of the discussion was started by the
> I _hate_ mailers which do that.
>
> > change in licensing of the sound driver caused by Hannu's teaming up
> > with a commercial developer. The concern is that the new licensing may
> > be in conflict with the kernel, which is GPLed (and is thoroughly
> > entrenched in that). This particular line was started when someone
> > suggested that RMS might change the GPL to prohibit all binary
> > distributions, not just ones where the source is unavailable. I
> > personally don't think that that would fit with RMSs philosophy.
>
> It also wouldn't work. Suppose you have one of these Slowaris boxes (no C
> compiler), or you just buy a PC (no C compiler, no tar, no gzip, no make,
> no *anything*...) how _do_ you get that box to run something more sensible?
I know that there are zealots that may flame me for this, but source only
distribution is not only impractcal, as noted above, but it would kill
Linux's potential as a useful alternative to Winblows. Linux could never
be more than a hacker's toy and never be important for much of anything.
Red Hat and Caldera wouldn't exist. Neither would Slackware. ...quite
frankly, Linux would likely be an insignificant, if not dead, project
under such distribution terms.
IM(no so)HO,
Ty