[3316] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Binary Driver Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnt Gulbrandsen)
Tue Jun 18 22:38:25 1996
To: dennis@etinc.com
Cc: mike@lserv.conexio.co.za, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:05:33 -0400"
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:27:57 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>
dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
> What an idiot. How can you "steal" free software?
In many countries, there is no truly free software. Norwegian law,
for examples, has no concept of public domain. One can get close to
it, my ftpd is copyrighted, but:
Use, modification and distribution is allowed without
limitation, warranty, or liability of any kind.
Most of what people call "free software" has far stricter copyrights
than that one. gcc is an example: I think most people agree that it's
free, but its licence is vastly stricter than the one above.
While a strict definition is probably impossible, I feel that what
Next tried to do to gcc (modify it and not GPL the modifications) is
theft.
You replied to another message of mine, saying in part:
dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
> >You have a problem with how linux users perceive you.
>
> Or perhaps is it that FreeBSD users have more confidence in their
> operating system :-)
>
> We have customers with multiple T1s doing some pretty powerful
> things. The bottom line is that Linux may not (currently) be
> appropriate for a "big" router.
This is _exactly_ the sort of comment I referred to. I read it as
saying "I don't like the operating system you are using, for a reason
which was at least partially relevant in the past". Yes, you give
good support, and yes, you came up with a 2.0 driver PDQ, but
statements that do not make linux users feel that you're committed to
coming up with linux drivers in the future.
--Arnt
