Microsofts new way of bashing Linux

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 09:29 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-16-06 at 21:05 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: 
> > > The fact is that many hardware manufacturers have trade secrets.  I
> > > know the CT company I worked for had (and still has!) many trade
> > > secrets around their software.  Exposing the driver source code can
> > > give a competitor--one smart enough to keep their trade secrets to
> > > themselves--a whole whack-o-clues about the trade secrets I have were
> > > I stupid enough to give my driver source away.  So by making my
> > > drivers open source, I basically give away my competitive advantage
> > > and let my competitors reap the benefits of my hard-spent money on
> > > R&D.
> 
> > Just patent your hardware innovations - you can release GPL drivers and
> > no one can rip you off.
> 
> Right.  That's certainly an option for a shop that had, at the time I
> worked there, five people total--that including the VC and the CFO.
> You are aware of how time-consuming and expensive a patent is to get,
> right?  And how open you're left to barratry when a company with far
> deeper pockets than yours challenges the patent in court?  A far
> smarter idea is to keep your secrets secret and ignore a fringe market
> that has a religious belief in taking your bread and butter away from
> you.
> 

If Linux is not a significant market for you then you don't need to
support it.  Otherwise you have to abide by the license.

It's not a religious issue, it's a technical one.  It's impossible to
anyone else to debug the kernel if drivers are loaded for which the
source code is not available.

It's not like closed source kernel drivers are the only option, you can
always put your hot IP in userspace or in the firmware if you cannot
release the source.

> > Besides, the legal consensus is that closed source Linux drivers are
> > illegal as they constitute a derived work of the Linux kernel.  This has
> > not been tested in court yet but it's only a matter of time.
> 
> That would probably explain why so few CT companies support Linux,
> wouldn't it?

What does "CT" mean in this context?

Lee