On 22 December 2010 21:22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Having accommodations in the kernel for proprietary drivers is not a
> mutual benefit anymore. ?That might be hard to understand from your
> point of view, but the incentives in the Open Source communities aren't
> based on commercial results.
DIS
On 22 December 2010 20:39, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
wrote:
>> So to say that the corporate world might need to consider Open Source to
>> be competitive and survive, but the reverse is not true i.e. Open Source
>> doesn't _require_ the corporate world to survive.
>
> i agree with it fully, and to
On 22 December 2010 09:51, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Okay I hereby refrain from legal comments.
>
> In any case, this code has passed legal at Freescale and AMD *AND*
> Qualcomm. It would not be GPL if it has not been vetted (and it took
> them a year to get to this point).
It appears that this discus
On 22 December 2010 21:22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Having accommodations in the kernel for proprietary drivers is not a
> mutual benefit anymore. That might be hard to understand from your
> point of view, but the incentives in the Open Source communities aren't
> based on commercial results.
DIS
On 22 December 2010 20:39, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
wrote:
>> So to say that the corporate world might need to consider Open Source to
>> be competitive and survive, but the reverse is not true i.e. Open Source
>> doesn't _require_ the corporate world to survive.
>
> i agree with it fully, and to
On 22 December 2010 09:51, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Okay I hereby refrain from legal comments.
>
> In any case, this code has passed legal at Freescale and AMD *AND*
> Qualcomm. It would not be GPL if it has not been vetted (and it took
> them a year to get to this point).
It appears that this discus
