Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S265211AbSJWWxP>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:53:15 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S265251AbSJWWxP>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:53:15 -0400
Received: from vladimir.pegasys.ws ([64.220.160.58]:18693 "HELO
	vladimir.pegasys.ws") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S265211AbSJWWxO>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:53:14 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:59:16 -0700
From: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>
To: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: over&out (Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?)
Message-ID: <20021023225916.GA6395@pegasys.ws>
Mail-Followup-To: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20021023003959.GA23155@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <004c01c27a99$927b8a30$800a140a@SLNW2K> <3DB6AC40.20007@nortelnetworks.com> <008b01c27ab0$760be900$800a140a@SLNW2K>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <008b01c27ab0$760be900$800a140a@SLNW2K>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2341
Lines: 56

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:23:03PM -0400, Slavcho Nikolov wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote
> | I don't think you understand the nature of the GPL and linux development.
> 
> What a presumptuous opening statement!

It is a statement of opinion based on proximate evidence and
was phrased as such.  Only a statement of fact not in
evidence could have been presumptuous.  You could persuade
us that he is wrong by showing us your applicable
understanding.

> | The kernel developers do not have any obligation to anything other than
> | technical excellence.  You're getting a highly optimized operating
> | system *at no financial cost*.  In return, the community requires that
> | certain types of modifications be made publicly available.
> 
> Yes, many companies from time to time feed smaller or larger contributions
> back into the community.
> But they don't usually release *all* their modifications because they just
> might be irrelevant to everyone but a small niche of enterprise users.

That is obviously untrue or a complete misunderstanding.

Even the tiniest, most specialized patch is more relevant
than a spelling error in a comment or some crook from
Nigeria asking for access to our bank accounts.  If the
patches are really irrelevant then it won't matter to you if
they are publicly available.  Maybe they won't seem so
irrelevant to someone else.

There would be little objection to their posting these
irrelevant modifications here.  The GPL only requires that
they be made available.  Stick them somewhere on your web
site with an obscure link pointing to them.

Irrelevance is no reason not to share patches.  Shamefully
bad code i can see not sharing, but such bad code shouldn't
be in a commercial offering.  The only reason not to share
commercially viable patches is the same reason the Linux
kernel is GPL.

Pay the price (free code) or shop somewhere else.  With GPL
that is _your_ choice.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/