Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 18:59:40 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: dufault@hda.com (Peter Dufault) Cc: julian@freefall.cdrom.com, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: DIGIBOARD driver in ~julian Message-ID: <9504210059.AA00941@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504202207.SAA12905@hda.com> from "Peter Dufault" at Apr 20, 95 06:07:50 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> No, I meant an organization would sign the NDA, pay Digiboard > the $200.00 for the documentation, and produce a shareware object only > driver. The Linux driver ALLEGEDLY is incomplete in its support. Oh. This is a *definite* goal in my mind -- the ability to use binary drivers means the ability to ship those drivers on hardware vendor's disks. I don't think it's too far off when a CDROM will be cheaper media than several floppies (after mastering and duplication costs) and I fully expect hardware to come with a CDROM. And there's a lot of room on a CDROM. Enough room for lotsa drivers for your hardware, even if you didn't write them. My point about LGPL is how do you leverage GPL drivers in a non-GPL kernel while keeping the distribution and code release restrictions and not restricting the kernel they go into. I've thought more than a little bit on the topic, and am close to being willing to distribute LGPL drivers for various things that aren't critical to system boot to the point that they can be installed. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504210059.AA00941>