Re: [LI] Fwd: Linux headed for disaster? >> Doesn't Patents protect Or Isn't Binary code ENOUGH !!! <<

[gopi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gopi K Garge)]

	Yep, like Raju points out _text like this_ kind of a markup 
	_is_ elegant and down to earth !  ;-) 

--Gopi

Raj Mathur sez:

> Now that we have Gopi's well-expressed opinions on the current GPL vs
> no-GPL debate raging in the list *duck*, I'd also like to suggest the
> judicious use of /.../ to highlight text.  As can be seen from their
> inclination, /characters/ are meant to represent forward-leaning
> characters, i.e. italics.

> I differ from Gopi in the use of *...* .. *action* is used to express
> a deed in my book *reaching up for the stars*

> Another option is to use _text like this_, though that is normally
> reserved for references like names of books and articles.  the _text_
> means underlined text.

> And BTW, it's so much more fun to flame in lowercase, gently (with a
> chainsaw? :-)

> Regards,

> -- Raju

> >>>>> "Gopi" == Gopi K Garge <gopi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>     Gopi> Hanish, You might want to use prefix and suffix using a
>     Gopi> character like "*" to highlight a point or a term in your
>     Gopi> email; using upper case implies that you are shouting (as in
>     Gopi> a flame...), which I presume is not what you are ... or are
>     Gopi> you ? .. ;-)

>     Gopi> --Gopi

>     Gopi> C Hanish Menon sez:

>     >> Hi

>     >> This is a doubt I have, may be what I am thinking is wrong,
>     >> Please do clarify.

>     >> On Tue, 07 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote: > But there are
>     >> situations under which people want to preserve their >
>     >> intellectual properties. And they should be free to do
>     >> so. XFree86 4.0 > is being smart here in defining a binary
>     >> interface. So if a graphic > chip vendor wants to release a
>     >> binary only driver, I can use it with > XFree86 4.0. Sure it
>     >> may not work as well as a source only driver, but > it's better
>     >> than nothing.  >

>     >> When talking about not releasing Source based drivers we are
>     >> talking about the possibility of one coming to know about the
>     >> Hardware logic built into these cards or so if I am not
>     >> wrong. Which the hardware vendor doesn't want others to use
>     >> with out permission from him. But is this Binary only driver
>     >> realy solving the above problem? My points for this are

>     >> a) He can PATENT it if its REALY UNIQUE. and this should
>     >> protect him from others taking undue advantage or copying his
>     >> effort with out getting consent from him.

>     >> b) The Software drivers If I am not wrong May/Maynot provide
>     >> enough info always. (I know it depends). But at the levels of
>     >> Drivers, If someone is REALLY INTERESTED in GETTING to KNOW the
>     >> HARDWARE LOGIC, the BINARY CODE IS IN ITSELF MORE THAN
>     >> SUFFICIENT MOST OF THE TIMES.

>     >> Thus I DON'T see as to WHAT advantage do hardware vendors have
>     >> in NOT RELEASING SOURCE based Drivers. PLEASE CLARIFY.

>     >> --------- Keep :-) HanishKVC http://hanishkvc.tripod.com/

>     Gopi> --

--