| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LCE: Linux, hardware vendors, and enterprise distributorsLCE: Linux, hardware vendors, and enterprise distributorsPosted Sep 5, 2007 21:04 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)Parent article: LCE: Linux, hardware vendors, and enterprise distributors
I wonder if Intel can sue those vendors that distribute binary-only modules with their hardware. Given that size of Intel contributions to the kernel, the company may have enough copyrights in Linux sources to argue about GPL violations by the vendors.
In the enterprise market even a threat of such lawsuit can be enough to stop sales of the affected hardware.
(Log in to post comments)
LCE: Linux, hardware vendors, and enterprise distributors Posted Sep 5, 2007 21:31 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] The actual problem seems to be the moving-target nature of kernel APIs, and the burden placed upon a hardware vendor to target not only kernel versions, but the various incompatible enterprise distros.
Feeding the sharks (trying to come up with a legal remedy) would benefit no one but the true enemy, the proprietary OS vendors.
LCE: Linux, hardware vendors, and enterprise distributors Posted Sep 5, 2007 21:58 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] I interpreted the article that the problem was vendors that shiped binary-only modules assuming that they could get away with hiding the driver sources from competitors. The fact that it is only realistically possible with stable enterprise kernels just shows the niche where GPL violators flourish.
But may be you right and the real problem the kernel developers are facing is that the vendors prefer to target the old enterprise kernels and not the latest stuff from kernel.org and it works for them. Even with the free drivers the problem would be exactly the same, that is, new hardware only working with old specific version of Linux.
|
|
||||||||||||