Newsgroup: it.comp.os.dibattiti
Titolo: Lo stato delle collaborazioni col Kernel Linux

Greg Kroah fa il punto della situazione sui problemi che stanno 
incontrando con le "bad company" che violano i termini della licenza, 
cercando al contempo di premiare le aziende che invece si uniscono alla 
community e che pero' vedono nelle violazioni impunite un grosso 
disincentivo alla collaborazione attiva a continuativa.
Una rapresentazione molto concreta e problematica dello stato di 
implementazione del modello di collaborazione del kernel Linux con le 
aziende. Personalmente, come dice lo stesso Kroah, penso che la 
soluzione migliore sia quella di percorrere un mix di tutte le proposte 
che ha fatto, in particolare evitando la prima proposta, che forse e' la 
meno utile e percorribile.
Buona lettura.
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/good_cop_bad_cop.html
" Good cop, bad cop
In talking with a lot of different companies recently, I've come to the 
realization that we really need to do something about companies that 
violate the kernel's GPLv2 license. It has been a common criticism that 
"Well, our company abides by the GPL by releasing the code properly for 
our kernel modules, but what about all of those other companies that do 
not?" The companies that are good members of the community are getting a 
lot of pressure by people internal to them to stop releasing the code. 
This is justified by pointing to the companies that do not release their 
code as they are not having any "penalties" by doing this.
Previously the kernel community has ignored almost all violators (with 
the obvious exception of the 
gpl-violations.org
 project). The kernel 
changes so rapidly that it is quite expensive for a company to try to 
keep up without releasing their changes and becoming part of the 
community. This has been done by the constant API changes and other 
rapid evolution that dictates Linux kernel development. However, if a 
company throws a bunch of money and developers at the problem, it is 
pretty trivial to keep up with this development model.
Another big problem is the fact that the kernel is created and 
copyrighted by thousands of individual developers and companies. 
Companies are usually not eager to sue other companies as they most 
likely already have business agreements with them. So that leaves the 
individual developers, but it's hard for an individual to do anything on 
their own against companies who violate their code.
So, what can the community do to handle these problems? Here's a few 
ideas that I've come up with:
     * continue as before, ignoring violators. But if we do this, more 
companies will see this as an implicit acceptance of the closed source 
modules and start to do it more and more.
     * Go after companies with legal action. This is good, but it's 
pretty "mean" and doesn't do much to try to help convert companies who 
could learn to become good members of the community. Remember, we need 
their help, and antagonizing them isn't the best way to accomplish this.
     * Ask companies who are friendly toward Linux to apply business 
pressure against these other companies to get them to change their ways.
     * Quietly take legal action against companies who violate the 
license. This has been the way the FSF has done things in the past, and 
for some instances this does work. But it does not give any publicity 
for the other offending companies to provide a disincentive.
     * Do big public notices of the offending companies. This will work 
in some cases, but others, not at all.
The best thing to do is probably a mixture of the above, but I really 
don't have any solid answers as to how to achieve some of them very 
well. Taking legal action against another company takes time and 
resources that individual developers do not usually have. Perhaps a 
combination of these things is probably the best thing to do.
Anyone have any other ideas?
Or how about incentives for companies who do abide by the license and 
are good community members. What can we do for them that will help make 
other companies realize the benefits of doing the same? It's usually 
easier to convince companies of a tangible benefit, rather than just the 
risks of incurring legal action.
Anyone have any good ideas about how we can help these companies more?
We need to do something, as I don't think that the current status is 
workable over the long term.
posted Wed, 28 Mar 2007 in [/linux] "
-- 
BArrYZ

 problem, it is pretty trivial to keep up with this development model.
Bello.
-- 
Sensei <senseiwa at Apple's mac dot com>
Error. Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue...
(Real BIOS Error)

BArrYZ wrote:
:: Buona lettura.
::
::
:: 
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/good_cop_bad_cop.html
:: "Anyone have any other ideas?"
Yes, adopt the BSD License. Be happy, don't worry.

 Bello.
bell'esempio di decontestualizzazione.
non voglio flammare, conosco il tuo pensiero, ma mi sembra una
forzatura.....



Ho solo separato le frasi, riportandole invece che una dopo l'altra, 
separate da uno spazio. Nulla di piu`, e tra l'altro non sono 
affermazioni mie, altrimenti ``so boni tutti a mettece na scritta'' 
(cit.)
-- 
Sensei <senseiwa at Apple's mac dot com>
43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr
fortune: Segmentation violation
Core dumped