Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ChangeLog: Reuters gets it wrong, again
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | According to Reuters, the "Linux camp" is trying to "sabotage" the
> | deal between Microsoft and Novell. One wonders if Reuters has a
> | special interest in slinging misinformation about the Linux
> | community, or just deeply misunderstands the Linux community
> | and can't be bothered to get it right.
> `----
>
> http://community.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1544201&from=rss
>
Sabotage is the wrong word. True GPL3 is taking into account the Novell-MS
deal, but it has to because of the iimplications in other such deals. I
haven't seen exactly how it is dealing with that particular part.
It could be construed as sabotage if viewed from the other direction, MS
getting this deal just when a draft of GPL3 was ready, causing it to be
delayed and I suppose at the time maybe making the work done so far invalid
to a point. Even if all they wanted was an uncertainty as to whether Linux
was still a viable obtion splattered across the press. But it was only a
draft, last time I looked at the gpl3 site various parts of the document
were out for review, which I think suggests that it is nearing completion.
I just checked and it is due the end of this month.
It does seem still to be haunted with the bad press, those that think that
GPL3 means that they have to give their software away or security keys.
It really is quite a simple thing in the end. This part of GPL3 means that
if I wanted to release BearItAllRouter my new 'Do It All Router In A
Matchbox', I can do that, I am effectively given the freedom to base my
device on Linux. So you actually start your project quite a way up the
development ladder, in some cases your application may be no more than a
few lines of code,
read input stream from net port $PRINTER_STREAM
write to printer port 'n of x'
(daft example, but it could be something like that)
I could lock down my own additions prevent changes to it, hide keys etc,
that part of my router is in effect my product. But I could not lock my
user out if a better router came along RoyShestowitzRouter, that did a bit
more or simply did it better or was a slight addition to the orriginal to
convert routed streams for example, then my users could switch or make use
of Roy's module. My users are not tied to me.
It actually makes good sound sense in many a design situation.
The longest part of developing a new mc embedded process was the OS, just
the interaction with the hardware. Then you built the actual application on
top of that. For large equipment though you would find yourself tied to
your orriginal hardware, otherwise you have to add developement time for
another set of hardware interfaces.
Linux already compiles for a very wide range of hardware.
You have the Linux kernel, possibly in it's own ROM (depending on the device
we are talking about). Then your applcation and additions to the kernel
modules in the developers EPROM. If you want to take advantage of a kernel
update a year or so after first release, it is easy, just blow the new OS
ROM, test it and out the door it goes to the customers. Or update your own
application and let the users download it and blow their own, as it were.
What we have is a situation where companies can save a fortune on
development costs by taking advantage of Linux. It has already proved
attractive enough to get many devices coming out with a Linux base under
them. Not only cheap, but already a proven safety record.
I'm sure we will get a lot of daft devices as well as the good and the great
devices, but the point is that anyone with an idea can have a go.
|
|
