4 ms·

Programming like that must be an absolute nightmare. Not only would have to understand the convoluted API scheme, you'd have to research the origins to see if y

Programming like that must be an absolute nightmare. Not only would have to understand the convoluted API scheme, you'd have to research the origins to see if you can legally use it. Things have gone too far when you start namespacing by license.

awda 12y ago
The usual and suggested way is to get it included in the mainline kernel. This reduces the pain a lot.
- plantain 12y ago
  How does that help exactly? Here's an example of Microsoft suing TomTom over components of the off-the-shelf Linux kernel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc.
  - awda 12y ago
    > > The usual and suggested way is to get it included in the mainline kernel. This reduces the pain a lot. > How does that help exactly? Here's what GP asked about: > Programming like that must be an absolute nightmare. Not only would have to understand the convoluted API scheme, you'd have to research the origins to see if you can legally use it. So, I guess the answer is "because if you take my (and every other kernel developer's) advice, you don't have to program like that." Was the not clear? Sorry. I guess the follow up question is, what the hell does the Tom Tom case have to do with GP's question?
catern 12y ago
Sure, but all you have to do to avoid this nightmare use the GPL. So since this encourages people to contribute their code back to the community (by releasing it under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license), I think it's a good thing.
- nly 12y ago
  Nice in theory, but many commercial shops will just use BSD instead. And that's fine.
  - awda 12y ago
    They are welcome to license kernel contributions under dual BSD/GPL ;-).
- poolpool 12y ago
  It doesn't encourage. It forces. Which could be another nightmare.
  - elipsey 12y ago
    Yes, if you use gpl'd code for free, the license forces you to share the improvements you make. That's the whole point of the GPL. No one forces you to use gpl'd code; if you don't like it, go write your own code.

awda 12y ago

The usual and suggested way is to get it included in the mainline kernel. This reduces the pain a lot.

plantain 12y ago
How does that help exactly? Here's an example of Microsoft suing TomTom over components of the off-the-shelf Linux kernel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc.
- awda 12y ago
  > > The usual and suggested way is to get it included in the mainline kernel. This reduces the pain a lot. > How does that help exactly? Here's what GP asked about: > Programming like that must be an absolute nightmare. Not only would have to understand the convoluted API scheme, you'd have to research the origins to see if you can legally use it. So, I guess the answer is "because if you take my (and every other kernel developer's) advice, you don't have to program like that." Was the not clear? Sorry. I guess the follow up question is, what the hell does the Tom Tom case have to do with GP's question?

catern 12y ago

Sure, but all you have to do to avoid this nightmare use the GPL. So since this encourages people to contribute their code back to the community (by releasing it under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license), I think it's a good thing.

nly 12y ago
Nice in theory, but many commercial shops will just use BSD instead. And that's fine.
- awda 12y ago
  They are welcome to license kernel contributions under dual BSD/GPL ;-).
poolpool 12y ago
It doesn't encourage. It forces. Which could be another nightmare.
- elipsey 12y ago
  Yes, if you use gpl'd code for free, the license forces you to share the improvements you make. That's the whole point of the GPL. No one forces you to use gpl'd code; if you don't like it, go write your own code.