Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound
An anonymous reader submits: "In an interview with CRN, Linus Torvalds says he's confident there won't be any IP problems discovered in Linux. In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code."
On a serious note, it is good to know he was thinking of these issues for some time.
Anyway, even though this interview is really short, Linus has good points. The kernel submission system is very open, unlike propriatary systems, and if there is a problem, it can be traced.
Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews. Why don't all these various online news sites take a hint? ;) at least ask him about -something- other than SCO SCO SCO.
Give the poor man a break.
There are lives at stake here!
All I got to say is...
"..."
'Nuff said... back to some kernel hacking!
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Linus has never tried to go commercial with Linux. He avoids this side of things. I think this is a strength. Commercial OSs are driven by the desire to sell and as a ressult suffer technically.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The fact that not only Linus himself uses Linux can already be considered a success...
To succeed in the mass market, it has to be put in the market first... Something that Linus did not do!
Don't confuse Linux (the kernel) with Linux Distributions such as RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. They distro companies are the ones usually marketing Linux and facing the customers... not Linus himself.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
The worst case senario (which I think is EXTREMELY unlikely) is that the courts find SCO right on all points, this means linux will become a "dark" OS, you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.
More likely is that SCO gets chucked out on it's arse for having such lame evidence (last I heard it was 80 lines that were copied word 4 word) and linux comes out fine.
But my biggest worry is that whatever the outcome whenever a big campany is looking to migrate, the issue of the "stolen" code will come out.
Some conversation like this will happen.
IT guy: We should switch to linux it's cheaper, faster and more stable.
Manager: But what about the stolen code?
(conversation on how it wasn't stolen etc.)
The biggest problem is our reputation will be tainted and that's whats bugging me.
Give a man a fire, he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
Profit motive is the worst and most inefficient way to develop any complex system. What's required is a true interest in what you do. Why do you think so many of those paper MCSEs were completely worthless? They did it because they wanted the money and didn't care about the technology. That's never going to get anyone anywhere. You do it because you love it, otherwise you find something else to do otherwise you'll always be second rate.
Un-news
It is built by developers...for developers.
I think that's rather unfair, but actually, this is *exactly* why I use Linux. Microsoft has always seemed to follow the philosophy of "Shut up, we know what's good for you", which is fine for most users but drives me up the fucking wall. I spent months learning to use Linux, but I can now finally set my computer up exactly the way I want it which I never could with Windows.
This is the main reason I like the open-source movement, not the philosophy or supposed superiority of the code.
Such as when he wrote this:
From: Linus Torvalds
To: Daniel Phillips
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Alan Cox , , , David Mosberger , "David S. Miller" , , , ,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> It goes on in this vein. I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
> this. Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.
Actually, we can, and I will.
I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.
The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.
Linus
Linux will be Fine no matter what the outcome and no Linux customer or vendor will be touched. Think of it this way. Toshiba and Sony are fighting over some new type of TV. Those TV's are used by customers and sold by stores like BestBuy. If Sony is found guilty, Sony will have to pay damages to Toshiba. No home user is going to be force to return the TV or pay money to Toshiba. Even BestBuy won't be fined. At most BestBuy will no longer be able to sell that model. To put this example into Linux terms, no Linux user will be touched and for any Linux vendor, the most that would happen to them is that they have to ship/use a different version of Linux without the infringing code. FUD, is FUD whether it is from MS or SCO. The sad thing about FUD is that it often confuses people into thinking as you have.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
That is not ignorance of the law, that is ignorance of the fact.
Not knowing that something is illegal is not an excuse.
Not knowing you DID something in the first place is a totally different matter.
Linus is not ignorant of the law, he knows taking someone elses stuff and putting it in his kernel without permission is illegal. The point is that, if you have no reason to suspect you don't have the rights, that should be the end of it as far as you are concerned, until someone points out otherwise.
To do things the other way would be incredibly expensive, and endless... how do you prove code is totally within your rights? Full patent search and public annoncement on each function and update?