Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel

[Jamie Lokier]

[e-mail] wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2003 02:21:25 MDT, Eric W. Biederman said:
> 
> > Beyond that the whole closed thing is a turn-off.  Which is likely to
> > reduce interest in your research OS and get you no free feedback on
> > the weird situations.
> 
> The target kernel doesn't actually *have* to be closed.  What if the
> kernel running the Linux driver was some open-but-incompatible licence?

Regarding Eric's point, I think it comes down to what captures the
imagination of potential users.  Even a GPL'd project is not likely to
get much interest if it doesn't offer anything worth using.
Conversely, see BeOS for something which was not ultimately a
commercial success, but which captured the imagination of a lot of
people despite being closed source.

> I'll just pause to point out that the single most successful TCP stack
> has to be the BSD one - which started off as DARPA-funded research, and got
> lots of feedback in spite of its license.

I disagree.  Many of the most successful TCP stacks _forked_ from the
BSD one at some time or other (e.g. SunOS, Microsoft), but then they
evolved in their own directions, with their unique quirks.

-- Jamie