From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Oct 6 19:00:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00670 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:00:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from allegro.lemis.com (allegro.lemis.com [192.109.197.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00638 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@freebie.lemis.com) Received: from freebie.lemis.com (freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137]) by allegro.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA24963; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:06 +0930 (CST) Received: (from grog@localhost) by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) id LAA04487; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:04 +0930 (CST) Message-ID: <19981007113003.G27781@freebie.lemis.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:03 +0930 From: Greg Lehey To: Wes Peters , Brett Glass Cc: Jerry Hicks , FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: RMS on UDI References: <4.1.19981006085422.04379a10@mail.lariat.org> <361A6C34.4AD93BAE@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <361A6C34.4AD93BAE@softweyr.com>; from Wes Peters on Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 01:15:00PM -0600 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-41-739-7062 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, 6 October 1998 at 13:15:00 -0600, Wes Peters wrote: > Brett Glass wrote: >> >> At 12:03 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Jerry Hicks wrote: >> >>> So what is the attitude around FreeBSD toward UDI? Not the concept, which >>> nearly everyone agrees is a Good Thing, but this particular set of proposals >>> from SCO, Intel, et al. >>> >>> I'm more than a little paranoid about I20 and suspicious of UDI too... >> >> As well we should be. However, the UDI spec is being distributed for free, >> without a demand for large fees, and there really don't seem to be strings >> attached. It seems sort of like the AT&T ABI specs in this regard. If so, >> it's a Good Thing. > > If anything, it seems more like UDI is a plot created by SCO to get us > "Open Source" developers to write device drivers for THEM. > > I personally have NO feelings whatsoever about this; anyone silly enough to > use SCO when FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux will ALL run on the same > hardware deserve what they get. > > I share Brett's (and RMS' -- imagine THEM agreeing on something!) > reservations about Intel's motivation in this. I think most contributors > to the free software community feel that commercial organizations should > not benefit from free software unless they give something back. Well, that's simple: put it under the GPL and they can't. This is really an argument against the Berkeley licence. > If, however, this encourages Intel or any other hardware company to > be more open with specifications and other documentation required to > write drivers, they WILL be giving something back. If Intel > undertakes to develope UDI drivers for the various hardware products > they produce, this will benefit FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, > SCO, Sun, and anyone else who uses UDI drivers. Precisely. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message