Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

Kurt Wall (
Sat, 25 May 2002 13:47:09 -0400

{CCs trimmed]

Scribbling feverishly on May 25, Karim Yaghmour managed to emit:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 4. Contact FSMlabs, ask about licensing costs, compare to #3 and go with
> > #4 if it makes sense.
> Many people have said this before and I will say it again: Linux is
> fine as an open-source/free-software rtos, but as a non-free rtos it
> has no chance in front of the competition.

Sorry, I must have lost track of this argument. I thought the point of
contention was the RTLinux patent, which seems pretty clear on the key
issue: if your stuff is GPL, we're GPL; if you make money, we want a slice
of the pie. Now it almost sounds like you're telling us that the real
issue is that you can't make your own Linux-as-nonfree-rtos. Well, I'm not
very smart, so maybe I've misunderstood.

> You can dimiss those who haven't chosen #4 as much as you want and
> find all the reasons to justify your dismissal. It remains that the
> embedded/rt market is closed to Linux because of the current situation.

That dog won't hunt. There are more players in the Linux embedded/RT space
than RTAI and RTLinux, which you have conveniently overlooked throughout
this entire thread. Maybe at this time none of them are ready for $300
IPO pops, but you can't make the argument that "RT is closed to Linux"
when your only data points are RTAI and RTLinux.


So, what's with this guy Gideon, anyway?  And why can't he ever
remember his Bible?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at