Linux Now Top Choice Of Embedded Developers

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at LinuxDevices.com, the latest market research data from Venture Development Corp. shows that Linux is now firmly in first place as the OS of choice for smart gadgets and embedded systems. VDC's latest data indicates that Linux now accounts for 15.5% of embedded projects, beating out Microsoft's WinCE (6%) and XPe (5%), and Wind River's VxWorks (10.3%)."

Comments

Re:the GPL is a mine field.

[10101001 10101001]

I work at a manufacturing company...

Okay, that's an interesting starting point.

There are as yet unresolved issues with the use of binary software with GPL software in general and linux specifically, despite linus' assurances that userspace code doesn't require GPL license compatibility and that he won't enforce that section of the GPL.

What was the link supposed to show again? Modules aren't userland programs. Modules (at least with 2.6.x) have to compile against the kernel source, and that's *clearly* covered under the GPL. The only real question then is whether such use of the kernel code is fair use. Whatever the outcome of that, userland is a wholly separate issue where no linking takes place (headers aren't even needed; you can just use a syscall chart and make your own if you're that paranoid).

What we found, is that the GPL, LGPL and other FSF licenses are very problematic when dealing with the control of code(proprietry or otherwise).

That's the whole point, actually. The GPL is designed specifically to remove control from everyone through copyright law.

The GPL licensing terms are very strict and dangerous in terms of source code-ownership vs binary code-distribution and legal obligations.

I'm not sure what your basis is for strictness, but the only restriction the GPL includes is if you use GPL code in your code that if/when you distribute said code as a binary, you provide one of 2 or 3 ways for someone to gain the source under the same terms you got the GPL source. Yes, this is a good deal more restrictive than say the BSD, but at the same time it's a lot *less* restrictive than preventing you from giving out binaries *or* source.

As for "dangerous in terms of source code-ownership", it's not dangerous at all. You own your source code, but you don't have a right to distribute someone else's code except under their provisions. If you don't like it, don't use their code.

We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'.

You're describing the use of all external software. Look at how SCO is suing IBM over a contract dispute which they bought/inhereted through several generations of companies. If you're that worried about what external copyright owners might do, never use external code; then you just have to worry about being sued because someone external claims you used their code anyways.

As we see more GPL software being used by companies with proprietry code, I think we'll see a nasty side of the GPL rear its head as enforcement starts to kick in from different areas.

"Nasty side"? You mean copyright law? If copyright law didn't exist, there wouldn't be any "nasty side" nor "ownership" nor "enforcement" nor "licenses". Because there exists copyright and the first three are in place to only benefit the original author of a work and no one else, the GPL is designed to counteract all the negative effects of copyright with copyright, through bloody enforcement with lawsuits and all.

It sounds like you're more interested in taking something which you don't own (GPLed works), using it as you please with other works (possibly stuff you licensed from someone else), and you're unhappy that the GPL conflicts with the latter when stuff like BSDed works don't. But, the GPL is all about making things non-proprietary, so no one can claim exclusionary control as fundamentally it's the exclusionary control that is what's causing all your/our problems in the first place.

Linus and others in the "open source" group are pragmatic, though, and realize not everyone is going to change overnight. But, they also realize the best way to guarantee that the Linux kernel behaves well is to have as much information as possible; dumping in binary/closed modules is horribly insecure,

Re:the GPL is a mine field.

[bhima]

I work for a big pharma company, and we reviewed the GPL & BSD licenses, along with many of the points the parent brings up and concluded that software of both licenses is useful to us, the license is compatible with our business model, and it's very easy to not only stay in compliance with GPL & BSD but in most cases cheaper. Of course this is only for Embedded or Machine control projects we still us windows on the desktop.

Anyway I had labeled the parent at best a Microsoft fan or at worst a troll and wasn't going to put the effort you did in refuting him. Bottom line both the GPL and BSD licenses have their use's and places and you can make money using both (and still comply with them), actually I think only the truly stupid or arrogant run afoul of either license.