safety-critical systems can use ROM
Posted Oct 18, 2006 14:10 UTC (Wed) by
cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to:
safety-critical systems can use ROM by smitty_one_each
Parent article:
FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
> For what values of 'always'? Among the long-term challenges here is the
> one where an idealogue fundamentally tweaks the 'spirit' of the GPL in
> questionable ways
I feel saddened that anyone sees things this way, especially given that
the 'spirit' they identify in the GPL is an incidental property rather
than an engineered end. But this issue has probably been beaten into the
ground now, though it's only fair to point out that the paranoia over
'changing spirit' is a long ways from being universally shared.
> ...and makes a big show of soliciting input, all the while shunting all
> input to /dev/null.
Pardon me, but do you have any evidence that this is what is happening?
Because there are a whole lot of people who have voluntarily stepped
forth and involved themselves in the process, both from the private user
community and corporate community, that have publicly said otherwise.
In fact, the only parties I've ever heard complaining about this
so-called "open sham" is kernel developers - the one party who has
repeatedly refused invitations to participate.
(Ironically, the one kernel developer that /did/ participate was seen
here asking his colleagues why they didn't join him, and I don't recall
him attributing the feedback process to a 'sham'...)
Personally, based on the statements of some kernel developers, I'm sad to
say that I'm having a hard time distinguishing much of what they say
publicly about GPL and RMS and FSF from FUD.
(
Log in to post comments)
