21 Sep
2006
21 Sep
'06
01:34
On 20/09/06 17:58, Jeff Rollin wrote:
<snip> I can see no reason for complaining that people who do not comply with the Linux licensing requirements are not given quarter; if a company disclosed confidential Windows specs or code, in breach of a Windows licence, in order to write a driver under the GPL (or any other), the response from Redmond would be a lot heavier and nastier than a snide remark or 20 on a mailing list. Your point being what? That the disclosure of confidential and/or copyright and /or patented hardware specifications or driver code is somehow in the same league as the lack of open-source code for the same device?
Get real.