RTAI/RtLinux

Joachim, your perception of "Embedded Systems" is not up to date. There is a lot of devices which fall into this group that provide resources you have been dreaming of for your workstation just 5 years ago. For instance, your digital video recorder may have a 200+ MHz PowerPC CPU, tens of megabytes RAM and tens of gigabytes harddisk space. Can you remember the configuration of your fastest workstation from 10 or 5 years ago?

Yes, there are embedded systems with limited resources where Linux is just overkill. And probably (by number of units sold) these devices are the majority.

But there are also lots of embedded devices that not only provide the resources for a more powerful OS like Linux, but also demand it because of the complexity of applications they are running. And if you look at current trends you will find that this is one of the fastest growing parts on the market.

Again, this is not quite correct. There have been Real-Time and Embedded Unix systems before (LynxOS, to name one). And there are other "common proprietary operating systems" that can be adapted for embedded needs (WinCE).

The big advantages of Linux are in defferent areas (free sources, excellent support of all modern technologies, not single-sourced, ...).

The problems with Linux in Embedded and especially in Real-Time Systems are not technical ones. It is the political situation, where the user is left in uncertainty about what he can legally do and what not.

And if you look at the (missing) answers to all specific questions about this you can see that there is method to it. "Go and see a lawyer" is all you get.

Hell, would you do busines with ANY company who tell you "ask your laywer" when you ask for explanations of the conditions of use of their products?

THIS is the main problem of Linux in the real-time market.

But who knows, maybe VY will provide clear "yes" / "no" answers this time...

Wolfgang Denk

Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: [email protected]
Man did not weave the web of life; he  is  merely  a  strand  in  it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.     - Seattle [1854]

Tape loops and arguments
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this contains no legal advice.

Many years ago during one of the earlier episodes of this, now regular, attack, I asked one of the first RTLinux contributors why he did not speak up to defend us and he said something like: I agree with all of your complaints, but I don't need the abuse I'd get for speaking up.

It's standard practice on the Internet that the loudest, most persistent, and most intransigent can "win" arguments by making it simply too unpleasant for everyone else.

I don't participate in these disputes anymore, since they don't seem to get anywhere. I do want to address some claims that are widely made here.

1. MYTH: "The acceptance of Linux in embedded is being harmed by uncertainty over intellectual property"

This is not correct from what I can see. Our customers include several Fortune 500 companies, and an incredible range of smaller companies around the world. The use of the free GPL RTLinux is hard to quantify, but we from all indications it is enormous. There are multiple mirrors, and we still had to limit download bandwidth on our site to 1G/day.

Our resellers and OEM partners include some of the most serious players in the embedded Linux business: LynuxWorks, RedSonic, and Red Hat.

And most of embedded Linux use does not require hard real-time.

This issue is perhaps based on problems seen by
the people who are yelling so loud - although I do not doubt that all the yelling does put off some potential adopters. There are also some issues particular to RTAI technology and support that we believe will put off adopters: an API in flux, no solid commercial support, stability issues and so on.

RTLinux is doing very well and there is no uncertainty about it. If other variants are not doing well, there are other reasons.

2. MYTH "The patent license is a terrible burden and terribly vague". The real dispute here has very little to do with the patent itself, and a great deal to do with GPL "linking". Linux itself permits binary modules and is generally pretty relaxed about what you can do to the kernel. But for companies like FSMLabs, Namesys, Trolltech, MySQL, and for many other GPL developers - controlling the right to add non-GPL components to our code is a business fundamental. Behind all the rhetoric of "I'm only in this for the greater glory of free-software" from our die-hard opponents, you find the demand to be allowed to make derivative works that incorporate non-GPL code - without payment of any fee.

Robert Schwebel has made the issue quite clear on occasion, by arguing that in the embedded controller world, the valuable IP often is _required_ to be tightly integrated into the base real-time system. I think he is partly right, but this is precisely the advantage we have as owners of the core RTLinux copyright.

The patent license is absolutely clear: GPL software can use the patented method without payment of any fee. So any dispute is on when one can use non-GPL software as a component - and in many respects the
the real-question is whether the Linux binary module exception can be imposed on everyone else.
In the dispute with our
RTAI friends, most admit that RTAI derives from the RTLinux code base. Given this, the absence of a patent would not solve the problem that Schwebel sees: it would still not be permitted to link binary modules into the derived program without our permission. RTAI "user space" to me, does not escape this issue.

All that said: we're not against making allowances for small support
companies: ask.

3. Although most RTAI developers agree that RTAI started from the RTLinux code base, this issue keeps being obscured. In the Linux tradition:
the code is definitive. If you look at
ftp://ftp.llp.fu-berlin.de/LINUX-LAB/RTAPPS/paolo/
you can see most of the history of RTAI, from "myrtlinux 0.6" which is openly billed as a variant of RTLinux 0.4 - note the peculiar copyright statement.

There is certainly a lot
more there than modified RTLinux, but whatever the virtues or lack thereof of this extra material, the absence of any of the RTLinux developer copyright notices in RTAI is noteworthy.

4. The point of the argument.
It is is obviously not worth arguing with people like David Schleef who can baldly assert that RTAI predated RTLinux and did not fork from it.

Karim Yahgmour writes that he has
asked the same questions over and over and not received a response. The tactic of asking questions that are really insinuations is to me an indication of the ethics of the questioner. "Questions" of the
form "did you steal XYZ code?" asked in the absence of any evidence are not questions, they are a dishonest way of damaging a reputation.

Q:Why is there no copyrighted material in RTLinux from Paolo Mantegazza?
A: Because none of his code was incorporated.
Q: Did we take Wolfgang Denk's MPC860 patches?
A: No. Why would we? Cort and I shipped working code for MPC860/Linux
as our first consulting project, long before FSMLabs existed.
Q: Are other people allowed to contribute code to RTLinux?
A: Learn how to use FTP. The answer is yes.
Q: Various questions implying shabby treatment of Michael Barabanov.
A: Karym has been "asking" such "questions" for years. In all that time
he has refused to take my suggestion that he ask Michael whether Michael appreciates this effort.

and so on. It's both annoying and tedious.

As for the requests for legal advice: Yahgmour has been playing Internet lawyer and encouraging people to sue us for a long time. The presence he makes to simply be asking for information is as believable as the rest of his pitch.

Hi,

I looked at the Red Hat site and didn't found a single mention of RTLinux.

Oh, the usual open source myth, how original... :-(

It is absolutely not clear and I already explained why.

noncommercial use" license. Why don't you say it like that? I think there enough of such licenses, which you can use an example. Maybe there would be then a small problem, that you would be in violation of the GPL and you couldn't freely use the work of others for your product? Especially if I see sentences like "If you distribute your software or market your software through some web site [..], you must make source code for the software [..] immediately available on the World-Wide-Web for all to access.", it says to me that you actually mean "Do all your work for free or pay". Such a requirement goes even further than even the GPL requires.
(Should I mention that your license had even worse problems in the past?)

AFAIK the patent doesn't give you the right to forbid anyone from using the technology, you only have a right to demand a compensation. If I am correct with this, you are possibly violating the GPL here. The binary module exception is an additional right granted to you by Linus, which you can't simply deny to others. The user space issue is even more clear, because that is clearly defined.
While we are at copyright violations, I was browsing your web site and I'm curious why you sell a separate binary UP and SMP version, wouldn't it be just enough to recompile the kernel and the modules? Are the additional 4000$ for the source version your definition of "cost of physically performing source distribution"?

It seems people did. Did you made a single serious offer to a RTAI user to license the patent?

bye, Roman

If you look through the older Red Hat news you will find info on this. You didn't look very hard did you

Hi,

I used Google: "fsmlabs OR rtlinux site:redhat.com" (almost only hits on mailing lists).
But isn't it a strange partnership, if I can only read about it in some old news? I couldn't find any rtlinux related product.

bye, Roman

No its not a strange partnership at all. Perhaps you should spend your time thinking instead of insinuating everyone on the planet who isnt working for rtai is a liar ?

Here is some of the press coverage on it
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010927S0074

Alan

Hi,

I am watching this whole mess already quite some time and I am trying very hard to make sense out of this. Victor pretends to be the nice guy here, but if one looks closer, one can see how little respect he has for the open source community and how much he is only interested in his own advantage. Alan, believe me that I am not doing such accusation easily and I'm quite aware that I'm not making myself any friends this way, but I'm not afraid to speak out what I think. I am thinking very carefully about this and I am not taking this easy.
Victor denies the RTAI people any clear answers about the license. Victor refuses to explain the application of the license to the RTAI situation. Why does he refuses to define ambiguous statements? Why can't he say whether the license applies to RTAI or not? It wouldn't be any problem, if the license didn't apply, but if everyone clearly knew that (what only Victor can say), they could sit together and talk about a license which is accommodated to RTAI's situation. All Victor had to say is that the LPGL parts of RTAI make use of the patented process and they need to talk about a license. The RTAI developers are asking for that for years without any reaction from Victor. Sorry, but I can't see any fault from them and I can understand that they get impatient to get issue resolved.
Alan, what am I supposed to think about this? You should know me a bit by now, I always accept arguments and I have no problems to admit a mistake and to apologize for it, but I won't take bullshit.

As I said, I didn't found anything on Red Hat's site. I thought it would be interesting to point out, but in the end it's Red Hat's business.

bye, Roman

I've met Victor several times including having discussions over open source philosophy patents and the like. I think he is a good guy. The patent grant says it can be used for GPL software. As a free software author I have no problems at all with Victor's patent. If I want to do proprietary software well shucks, I'm going to have to play by the proprietary rules. I don't see that anti free software. It might be anti how convenient I can mix the two and flog it for lots of money, but thats not free software anyway.

He told them that if they were not sure they should ask a lawyer. That sounds to me rather correct advice. What kind of answer do you expect. There are really only two that might be expected in such a situation, they I suspect go

"We think you need a license if you use proprietary software
with this" and "Ask a lawyer"

Given the first answer RTAI from their whining on this list would take the second answer anyway.

Hi,

I can't judge about this, my judgement comes from how he treats the RTAI developer.

GPL is not the only free software license.

It's about "free speech" not "free beer".

1. We are talking about a free software project here!
2. They asked a lawyer, here is the result:
http://lwn.net/2002/0131/a/rtai-24.1.8.php3
So according to this legal advice, normal application running under RTLinux/RTAI are not infringing the patent and therefore need no license. Victor now seems to see things different: "it would still not be permitted to link binary modules into the derived program without our permission. RTAI "user space" to me, does not escape this issue." Such statements are what creates the uncertainty and Victor does nothing to resolve this issue.
That RTAI can be used in a commercial or even closed source environment doesn't matter here. I'm not happy about the binary module situation either, but you have to take that to Linus. Whatever is allowed in user space is clearly defined by the kernel license.
The RTAI developer have the right to use their work however they wish, should there be a copyright problem, it should be correctly labeled as such and definitely doesn't need a patent license.

bye, Roman

Take that up with Richard Stallman, he defined what the GPL linking rules were, nobody else.

So why is he still moaning. He's got a legal opinion that he can use binary apps on RTAI without paying the license. What else does he want ?

Hi,

That Victor acknowledges that this is correct legal advice and he will accept that?
Instead we see statements like this: "it would still not be permitted to link binary modules into the derived program without our permission. RTAI "user space" to me, does not escape this issue."
How will he do this? To our knowledge applications don't infringe the patent and he can't change the kernel license. What does he know that we don't know?

Let me quote from Victor's FAQ:
"If you want to mix GPL and non-GPL software under unmodified Open RTLinux, you may be able to do so as well, but we suggest caution. The intent of our license and the GPL itself is to permit reciprocal sharing of software technology. If you have software that you prefer not to make available to others, then you may be able to take advantage of the "unmodified Open RTLinux" provisions of our license or you may need to use RTLinux/Pro."
In other word: if you want to be safe, use the license or buy our product. Other options are not mentioned. What has the user to be cautioned of, when he mixes the GPL with the LGPL? In my understanding these are subtle, but clear threats against unauthorized use of the patent.
It's nice that he wants to help the GPL, but we should refuse such help. I would do quite a lot to promote the GPL, but I would never force people to use the GPL. It's very important that people do this out of their free will and Victor doesn't offer much choice here. A patent is a very dangerous tool, it gives you an exclusive right, which must not be abused.

bye, Roman

I can't speak for Victor, but...

Is it illegal for Victor to keep his options open?

It is really simple. Either A) Victor has a patent, and code in RTAI may need to be licensed, or B) Victor has a patent, and code in RTAI does not need to be licensed.

The text for the patent is available. Technical people and lawyers huddle over a table, decide whether it is worth the risk, and go from there. This is the way that every company must go under our current legal structure.

Even if you *did* get a 'straight' answer out of Victor, his words would not change his ability to sue RTAI. If RTAI needs a license, they should *get* a license. If they don't need a license, they don't need a license.

What is clear, is that the wrong question is being asked to the wrong person. You don't ask Victor whether you can be exempt from potential risk. You ask Victor for a license (i.e. written down and signed by his company), or you take the risk, and assume that you do not need a license. In neither case do you ask "I think my code might infringe on your patent, can you make a (verbal) statement publicly that you will look away if indeed you ever, at any time in the future, decide that it is?"

In fact, if such a question was posed (which I think we have observed), I would assume that the company posing the question was not legally responsible, and *I*, as a prospective client in need of a RT OS for my application, would avoid. The last thing I need is the company working on my RT OS to be sued and disappear. I would much prefer to work with the company that has the patent.

But then again - this is the crux of the matter. RTAI is suffering due to 'patent issues', and RTLinux is not. RTLinux owns the patent, after all. This couldn't possibly be RTAI whining because they cannot get a large enough customer base, could it?

Sure there are all sorts of precidences that this sets. However, I have yet to see any sort of true evolution or development *not* set precidences.

The only real argument I have seen from RTAI folk is that Victor isn't being a proper Open Source priest. This may annoy other Open Source priests, but it does not affect my own opinion of the man. I find the 'Open Source' religion to have no future. I see applications of an Open Source-style license, but as a religion? As an ability to judge a person based on some sort of Open Source-defined morality? Nope... no future.

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

I think this is the main, critical, horrendous point.

RTAI is free, open source software.
whether it is covered by the licence or not, it's allowed by the free clauses in rtlinux.

The problem here (and i can see why Karim is upset) is that people who use RTAI to make commercial, closed source software may ALSO be required to licence RTLinux even though they're using RTAI, not RTLinux.

This would be retarded. I mean, seriously, making the linux kernel require anybody who's doing any commercial real-time stuff pay Victor because it's in the kernel source and it's patented is just plain dumb. Linus doesn't want to force anyone to use bitkeeper, why should he force anyone to pay Victor as well?

Of course I must point out that it's easy for me to speak up : although I do almost entirely embedded work I have absolutely no use for RT software here, so I'm not affected at all. I just see it as a slippery slope towards BSD :)

Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

proprietary, not commercial.

Alan

Which brings us back to Larry's comments on business models.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to operate a non-proprietary commercial software business these days.

I wish it weren't so, but it IS. If RedHat is filing patents, then it's fairly apparent that RedHat thinks so too, isn't it?

Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

Strange line of reasoning. Red Hat is an open source company. It doesn't have a proprietary installer, random bits of the binaries and libraries that are licensed per seat, embedded setups that happen to generate partially non free per unit licensed embedded targets.

There are years old Cygnus patents on bits of gcc, there are current Red Hat filed patents with GPL grants, there are countless thousands of IBM patents a few of which have GPL grants. People keep assuming this is something new, yet I would not be suprised if some of the gcc related patents pre-date Red Hat's existance.

This is not the argument put forth, but this is definitely where the political line falls: You either believe in open source or you don't. No one has summarized this better than Victor:

"The GPL/RTLinux work that we do loses money -- actually, we budget it under "marketing"."

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you find yourself, ask yourself this question:
Do I want to be part of Victor's marketing team?

Karim

===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
[email protected]
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================

The same could be said for many distributions which allow free downloads, no?

You could also word it as, do i want to be a proponent for Linus' evil world domination schemes? Its your choice...

http://function.linuxpower.ca

I don't see the patent stopping people from creating non-proprietary commercial software. I *do* see the patent perhaps forcing people who make money off non-Open Source extensions to have some sort of deal with Victor.

I don't see what is unfair about this.

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Ahhh, so Victor makes the money off all the Linux people because his is the only part that's _patented_.

Do you see what I'm getting at now? When a party chooses Linux for their platform they're choosing all of it, and maybe they'll be taking Victor's stuff along with the rest simply because it's the rest that they _really_ want.

Why should Victor be making money off your work?

Dana "bowing out of this conversation before the PRGN people get made at me cuz the SEC has made everyone paranoid" Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

What about Peregrine Software? From your address I guess that you are willing to work for them, right? They own software patents.

United States Patent 6,046,988

---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com

Hell of a lot more than just that one :)
(and if you plot PRGN's stock price in the last 12 months you can see where it got us :)

(You missed my point. I'm not saying that RedHat patenting is the bad part, I'm saying that trying to force people to use free software and pushing the GPL-domination of the (software) world WHILE patenting software is the bad part. Alan works for RedHat after all (though as he pointed out, RedHat hasn't been REALLY patenting stuff, they've merely bought other people who DID :)

I work for a commercial company, and I don't have a problem with this. I'm arguing that if one includes patented software in a 'free' platform then many commercial users of that platform will move to something else rather than deal with the patent. There are other free software alternatives after all. I spent a lot of time working with Linux, I don't want to have to tell my managers to switch to BSD instead :) (ok, maybe that's not 100% true :) :) :)

Personally, I think the EU has it right : software patents are ridiculous. So is the DMCA (and the follow ups to it.) So are many of the actions performed by the US government. (As Chomsky defines them, terrorist actions.)

But this isn't a political forum, this is a mailing list devoted to developing the best free unix-like OS in the world.

That doesn't change the fact that in a capitalist world people need to survive, they need to participate in that worlds' rules. Which means Software patents in the US and CDR taxes in Canada. So I get to live in both the free and commercial worlds and I hope that other people here can see that too. (Larry has shown a great example of how that IS possible :)

Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

1) I was not aware that 'Linux' came with Victor's stuff.

2) If I was truly an Open Source priest, I would not care whether another person made money off my work. Only non-Open Source priests, or fake Open Source priests are concerned with such things. Any true Open Source priest knows that people will not use non-Open Source products by the end of this millenia.

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Hi!

I dont see whyhe could not answer "LGPL is ojkay according to us, and we promise not to sue you."

Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt,
details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.

Realize of course, that unless it is a signed piece of paper with specifically listed terms, the 'it is ok and we promise not to sue you' is not legally binding, and is therefore meaningless.

The piece of paper usually takes the form of a license.

See where this goes? :-) Round and round...

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

We released code under GPL. We do not and did not
give permision to LGPL that code or derived works without further license from us.

---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken 
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
 www.fsmlabs.com  www.rtlinux.com

It has become increasingly difficult to operate a proprietary commercial software business too. (It's called a recession... 8)

Rob

Thanks Victor for taking the time to go through some of the issues.

That is your own assesment, which is of course somewhat biased since I don't see you coming out and telling us: "True, the market has a problem with my patent." This standpoint is the only one expected. But given that you are not the only vendor out there, others have testified on this list that indeed Linux has a hard time penetrating in the embedded/rt market precisely because of your patent.

I will leave it to the average LKML reader to decide whether the problems I discribe are "myth" of "fact" in light of all the testimony presented on this list.

Also, you omit to explain why the 11,000 developers sampled by the VDC point "real-time limitations" as their #1 show-stopper for using Linux.

You're trying to play the "niche" trick here, pointing out that your patent is OK because it's a niche market. As I pointed out very early in this thread, embedded/rt is far from being a niche.

So are you suggesting that we all line up behind you and shut up?

This is a non-issue. A couple of vendors already provide commercial support for RTAI. But read what an article in Embedded Systems Programming had to say about this issue in May 2001:
<quote>
In my opinion, RTAI provides a more practical API while RTLinux is more elegant. On the other hand, RTAI is more elegant in how it integrates into the Linux kernel. The RTAI team makes a constant effort to add features that people ask for, and thus its API has grown to become reasonably extensive. For example, RTAI includes clock calibration, dynamic memory management for realtime tasks, LXRT to bring soft/hard real-time capabilities into user space, remote procedure calls, and mailboxes.

The RTLinux team aims to keep their real-time Linux extensions as predictable as possible, adding only features that won't hurt designs and compatibility in the future. In short, the RTLinux API is more consistent, but many practitioners prefer to use RTAI. </quote>

Seems to me that RTAI is the prefered choice.

Well, it's clear that we won't agree on this statement.

FSMLabs cannot be compared in any way to any other open source company:
I can rewrite Qt and distribute it under the license I like I can rewrite MySQL and distribute it under the license I like I can't rewrite RTLinux and distribute it under the license I like

As for your dismissal of the "motivation behind the act", it does not dismiss any of our arguments, but only reinforces them.

Your ownership over the entire core RTLinux still remains an open question.

So does RTLinux derive from work on RTAI. The arguments nullify each other here.

Wait. Are you saying here that the GPL in a module extends to "user space"?

Thanks for the offer, I am sure some will find it useful, but the larger issues remain.

So is the inverse.

If my questions are "far off" or if my insinuations are misleading, then it should be rather easy to dismiss every single of them. As for my ethics, I leave this for people who actually know me to judge. That being said, this is not the first time you use personnal attacks against me. First, you dismissed my opinions because you thought I had made no open source contributions, then you said that my opinion were "for sale" because I had done some work for Lineo (remarkably my opinions have not changed although Lineo entered in agreement with you), then you said I was a nutcase, and the list goes on and on. But then again, you're the one who said the following during one of earlier discussion:
"All of us who have actually developed commercially significant GPL software have to spend too much time explaining to customers that Slashdot crazies and other freelance zealots have no standing and nothing to do with us."

To which I replied:
"It strikes me as odd that you may find it to marginalize "Slashdot crazies" and "other freelance zealots" when you owe them, at the very least, your current bread and butter. This is rather ungrateful and condescending at best.

Others who have come to make money out of GPL software have taken the time to explain to their clients what this mosaic of characters is all about and why it is so important to Open Source and Free Software."

My point of view regarding your personnal attacks against every single person who disagrees with you run somewhere along those lines.

Fine, then reread my other question regarding those contributions. Has no one ever contributed any code to RTLinux? If no one has then RTLinux is certainly not an open source project. If someone has, then why do the headers contain only the name of FSMLabs? Why are those 20 persons named in the credits file credited for anyway? Why do people who have worked for you readily recognize that code has been exchanged between both RTLinux and RTAI?

Hmm... If I disagree with something you're doing, I usually tell you without you asking. If Michael dislikes what I'm doing, he's got my email address.

I ask questions about Michael because it really seems incongruent that this project which was implemented by one of the students you were supervising is now entirely in your hands and that you are the single author on the patent although, as you said in your own article, he took it from concept to implementation all by himself while adding concepts you hadn't thought of.

BTW, my first name is actually "Karim", with an "i", the "karym" thing used to be my login. "Karim" is actually the french translation of my (clearly) arabic name which means "generous". It's often spelled as "Kareem" in english because that's how it sounds like in the original.

Fine, if it's so annoying and so basic, why don't you answer those questions and get rid of them once and for all?

Note that you didn't answer the most important questions of all #1 and #2.

I don't remember "encouraging people to sue" you. If I did, it would be a mistake. What I did do, however, is point out that there is serious potential for this given the presence of foreign copyrighted material belonging to outside contributor, as can be seen my looking in the credits file and as recognized by your own people.

As for the patent issue, then yes, I have been intensively researching every aspect about how this patent can be dismissed and presenting those to the public. At this point, I think it is more than obvious that it can be dimissed. Anyone wanting to pick this up can now do so without my help. I still do have a couple of other facts which can help in this regard, but I won't post these here.

BTW: "Yahgmour" isn't my last name, it's "Yaghmour", which means rain in turkish. That "Yahgmour" doesn't mean anything.

Very early on, I pointed out that this sort of argumentation is called "sophism". Dimissing me != dismissing my arguments.

Notice that I haven't dismissed you. I have argumented every point you brought forth and you have not answered a singled email by me.

For all your personnal attacks against me Victor, you have yet to dismiss my main claim.

Karim

===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
[email protected]
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================

Sounds like people who can't get customers calling foul to the one that can.

I would label it "seriously exaggerated fact to obtain market share".

"Real-time limitations" *are* the #1 show-stopper for using Linux. This isn't an argument for or against your point.

Actually, it looked like he was just presenting a fact. Most people that say they need RT, don't, and the few that do, do not tend to mind patents.

Most companies with serious RT requirements do not wish to re-write and distribute 'as they like'. In fact, the only reason they have to do this now, is because the tools are not mature enough.

The problem here is obviously open-source companies that prefer to avoid paying for software, because they do not sell software, and companies that sell software, and do not mind paying for software to sell software.

The fact is, patents are legal. Live with it, or convince a few senators that they should remove 'patent infringement' from the set of actions that can be tried in a court of law.

You are not getting anywhere here.

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Well, again this runs the same way as Victor's other personnal attacks. Dismissing arguments because of who points them out doesn't really work.

As you wish.

In light of every person I met in the last 2 years I started working against this patent and in light of all the testimony seen here, it certainly is. Read the start of this thread to get the full argument behind this.

These claims have been contridicted a couple of times now by many people outside myself.

That's not the point is it? The point is that Victor's patent and its use to make money from GPL software is unique in the open source software world. Hence, any time you talk about this issue, it has to be taken outside the standard open source frame of discussion because there is no other equivalent case.

Did you read all the emails stating that clients simply don't use Linux because of this patent and because of Victor's lack of clarity on the actual interpretation of how far reaching his patent is?

I said it before that I am aware of the issues involved.

Actually, it is this thread that is not getting anywhere and that is getting us back to the exact point I summarized earlier in the following post:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102252033827888&w=2

We should leave it at that.

Karim

===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
[email protected]
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================

1. I do dislike what you're doing, however I don't want to waste my time arguing.
2. Just to let you know: I still work on RTLinux, and doing fine, thanks.

Michael.