From: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: "Anshuman Gholap" <anshu.pg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:09:04 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <ec92bc30603080135j5257c992k2452f64752d38abd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ec92bc30603080135j5257c992k2452f64752d38abd@mail.gmail.com>
Public-GPG-Key: 0xD53E9583
Public-GPG-Key-URI: http://dashjr.org/~luke-jr/myself/Luke-Jr.pgp
IM-Address: luke-jr@jabber.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200603091509.06173.luke@dashjr.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1258
Lines: 25

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 09:35, Anshuman Gholap wrote:
> 1) The people who have control over linux kernel as of now are
> countable on hands but cannot be held countable for work cause they do
> it as hobby/"insert anything which says working for free", now for a
> peice of code like linux kernel, such kind of aloofness regarding
> manpower and kind_of nazism in not allowing others to dynamically
> get_work_done (like binary driver) seems totally wrong.

Binary drivers are no more "work" than robbing a bank is. It is making a 
profit through cheating people, which is of course what is truly wrong.

> 2) there are two possibilities here, a) linus and co can gather in a
> building pay all intellects and allow fast driver developments, b)
> allow binary drivers to work with linux kernel dynamically(with their
> own license what they choose).

Or Linux can remain GPL'd, which prohibits binary drivers *legally*, and back 
this by keeping a non-stable API which prohibits binary drivers 
*technically*.

-
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/