|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

relevance of Landley’s comments

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Dec 15, 2008 10:32 UTC (Mon) by pjm (guest, #2080)
In reply to: FSF, OSI and Busybox by ballombe
Parent article: The FSF raises the stakes for Cisco

I think the primary relevance of the cited blog is not Landley’s relationship with Busybox but rather the issues he raises in the first 1–3 paragraphs of http://landley.net/notes.html#11-12-2008 (and the “last week” entry it references): that it is valuable to have large hardware procurers/suppliers like Cisco on one’s side (e.g. having free software driver support as one of their condition of procurement), and his impression as a Cisco insider that this suit jeapordizes Cisco’s steps in that direction: and hence that this “bull in a china shop” approach is a tactical error for FSF’s goals.

to post comments

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Dec 15, 2008 12:55 UTC (Mon) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link] (5 responses)

his impression as a Cisco insider that this suit jeapordizes Cisco’s steps in that direction: and hence that this “bull in a china shop” approach is a tactical error for FSF’s goals.

Can anybody say with a clear conscience that the previous approach had worked to get cisco to get it's linksys division' house in order? clearly it hadn't since 5 years after cisco bought linksys, the linksys division of cisco was still fixing GPL compliance issues after product is released.

I'm going to make an entirely reasonable guess at what is going to happen. This will all blow over in month or two, cisco will keep it's linux plans on track (especially since the BSD's would be affected just the same , since they use some FSF GPL software) and that they will finally push their GPL compliance procedures at cisco out to their linksys subdivision.

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Dec 15, 2008 23:24 UTC (Mon) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link]

Neither I nor (I’d guess) Landley knows the details of the negotiations in the current case, but it’s very valuable to be aware of the damage and to consider how to minimize that damage.

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Dec 15, 2008 23:39 UTC (Mon) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] (3 responses)

> Can anybody say with a clear conscience that the previous approach had
> worked to get cisco to get it's linksys division' house in order?

Yeah. Me.

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Dec 18, 2008 14:36 UTC (Thu) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link] (1 responses)

>> Can anybody say with a clear conscience that the previous approach had
>> worked to get cisco to get it's linksys division' house in order?

>Yeah. Me.
So why is linksys still causing the same problem with new products? have $$$ blinded you to the problem here? or have you just been bought heart and soul.

order

Posted Dec 18, 2008 23:53 UTC (Thu) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link]

There was no call for that last bit. Please refrain from such insulting and inflammatory insinuations on LWN.

Regarding the current case, he has already once in these comments replied to the charge of being influenced by money in his opinions on this matter, if you care to look.

I would ask you to refrain from such comments no matter who you're replying to, but I think you owe Rob Landley much more credit than you're giving.

relevance of Landley’s comments

Posted Jan 13, 2009 2:22 UTC (Tue) by darkonc (guest, #14197) [Link]

Could you provide some specifics on HOW being lenient with Cisco about their repeated violations of the GPL has resulted in their linksys group being diligent in ensuring that future products wouldn't violate GPL?

From my rather distant perch, it seems more like Cisco's simply been assuming that their GPL-friendliness (which has, incidently probably resulted in increased sales).. would give them a bye with result to their linksys-group violations.

It's actually two different issues with two different divisions of th company.

If the FSF's lenience has been truly productive, it would be good to know how..


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds