@mhagain: Or like this? http://linux.slashdo...ant-use-dma-buf

That's nuts.

I can understand GPL issues with the code, but the concept also being prohibited is firmly into crazy-land. It's taking everything that's wrong with the US software patent system and re-inventing it in GPL territory. Somebody ought to be hanging their head in shame.

[quote name='Daaark' timestamp='1349985398' post='4989223']
@mhagain: Or like this? http://linux.slashdo...ant-use-dma-buf

That's nuts.

I can understand GPL issues with the code, but the concept also being prohibited is firmly into crazy-land. It's taking everything that's wrong with the US software patent system and re-inventing it in GPL territory. Somebody ought to be hanging their head in shame.
[/quote]

Yeah well, the whole GPL in general is just a sneaky way to charge people for the use of your code. They like to pretend they're making it "free", but in reality, for library level code, they've just changed from charging money to charging source code, which requires time and therefore money to produce. At least commercial libraries are up-front about it and (usually) make a few guarantees about quality and support.

Regarding the mention of Doom on the previous page, as id Software are the original copyright holders they are perfectly allowed to relicense the (original) code under any other terms they wish to other parties if they wish, or even reuse it themselves if they so wish. There's absolutely nothing different there to what you see with other programs where two or more licensing options may be available.

Got it.