Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: rtlinux.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to rtlinux.com.

Comments · 10

  1. Nice Try Montavista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Non-Deathmatch: Preempt v. Low-Latency Patch

    Unfortunately, the preemptable kernel was not pioneered by Montavista. The real developers were by the Real-Time Linux project. I believe there are several long-standing law-suits between the two. All of which the RTL people have won.

  2. Here's the license by ben_tarval · · Score: 1 · on RTLinux Patents: Issue Closed?
    You can read the current license at ftp://ftp.rtlinux.com/pub/rtlinux/v3/PATENT_LICENS E .

    Note that the last mod time, as I write this, is Jan 22, 2001 - so it hasn't been changed yet. It looks like section 2.6 is going to be removed.

    One has to wonder why rtlinux screwed up here. This seems like a ton of bad publicity for such a minor change. To say nothing about the negative publicity over a patent (and a patent that wouldn't hold up in court, no less).

  3. Re:If there intent was IP... by trb · · Score: 2 · on FSF Statement on Violation of GPL by RTLinux

    The RT part of RTLinux is a microkernel that runs Linux as a subordinate task. The RTLinux folks do also provide this microkernel layer under NetBSD, this is plain to see on their web site. So it depends what you mean by "focus." If you mean why don't they support a BSD, they do. If you mean why don't they pay more attention to BSD than to Linux, I don't know why you'd as that, and the answer probably involves customer/market demand.

  4. Once again you have it wrong by SurfsUp · · Score: 3, Informative · on FSF Statement on Violation of GPL by RTLinux
    basically they say that RTLinux is violating the GPL by not releasing the source to their Linux kernel mods

    The violation has nothing to do with source code, which is freely available, it has everything to do with restrictions on use of the software - it is free only for non-commercial use. If you want to sell your program you have to buy a license. Interestingly, this is a case where GPL fanatics are sticking up for the rights of commercial users.

    Next post could you please consider checking both your facts and your spelling? ;-)

  5. The Open RTLinux Patent License by mblase · · Score: 5, Interesting · on FSF Statement on Violation of GPL by RTLinux

    ...is listed on their site here. Anyone who can translate this into plain English, please do so. IANAL.

  6. free software and patents by _|()|\| · · Score: 3 · on Software Patents vs. Free Software
    > I wonder if it is possible to "GPL" a patent.

    Check this license out.

    Victor Yodaiken chose to license a patent for use in software released under version 2 of the GNU GPL. The net effect is less freedom than mutual defense or simply publishing the "invention" to serve as prior art.

  7. Re:IBM makes lots from patents by ErikJson · · Score: 1 · on Software Patents vs. Free Software
    > I wonder if it is possible to "GPL" a patent.

    Hmm... Dunno, but it seems to be possible to patent GPL:ed code... Or something.

    Check this license out.

  8. RTLinux Alternative PC Seaker control by castle_hawk · · Score: 1 · on Writing Kernel Drivers

    First: Kudos to Cherry for doing such a neat article!

    Second: Before everyone starts saying 'Win3.1 could do this' - it could but the driver was crap and went to 100% processor usage all the time.

    Third: Check out RTLinux (www.rtlinux.com) for a very cool mod to give real time scheduling to Linux (and now FreeBSD!) - I know the 2.0 version has an example PC speaker driver written as a Real Time kernel module, don't know about the new 3.0 - go get the patches, go have fun!

    This is something I would love to see integrated into the tree at some point.

  9. This is largely irrelevant by eclectro · · Score: 1 · on QNX Now Free For Non-Commercial use



    since a lot of projects like linuxBIOS and real time linux are starting to mature. Why use "somewhat free" when you can have "all free."

  10. Embedded Linux - wrong answer? by Animats · · Score: 4 · on Embedded Linux Consortium Officially Launched
    I'm not that thrilled about "embedded Linux", especially for real-time work. Wrong tool for the job. You usually want a real-time OS, like VXworks or QNX. There's RT/Linux, but it's an awful hack; the real-time processes run unprotected in kernel mode.

    There's a real need for an open-source real-time protected-mode operating system, but Linux, or any UNIX variant, isn't it. L4 has real potential, but it's not finished yet. Already you can run Linux on top of L4. If you're into embedded open-source real-time, get behind L4 and push.