> Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO, but in > this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property present > in the drivers. If the drivers weren't OCO, anyone could step up to the > challenge to provide support. But, when all the shouting is over, IBM or > its delegate is the one who provides support for its OCO modules, not the > Open Source community at large. This means that IBM has the right and the > responsibility to determine what levels of the kernel it will support.
I'm not affected by IBM's OCO policy, but other companies have similar policies. There has been some heated discussion about this on enigma-list recently; a certain video card vendor provides drivers (required for good #D performance I'm told) for Linux. Unfortunately the driver in question seems to trample on other folks memories, and the Red Hatters won't even think of helping with a kernel problem if the driver's been loaded. Certainly it's the vendor's right and responsibility to provide the support and fix the driver, but I'm sure a lot of other folk would be happy to step up and help out if only they had the source. Some of them would do it for free, just so the card works for them. > It is obvious that many on this list have differing views about what the > word "support" means. By that, I mean more than just doing some coding. I > mean that IBM will fix something that isn't working. That promise is not > trivial and actually costs IBM real dollars to provide. We have people > that design, code, test, and document our drivers. When there's a new > driver, there's more testing. That means tying up REAL resources (people > and machines). When that happens, those resources aren't available to be > used on other things, whether related to Linux or IBM's other business > interests. It is not the IBM business model to release code to the world > that may or may not work, and then wait for the fall-out. IBM is a big company and has many business models. Some areas do indeed release code that may or may not work and wait for the fallout. Sam the Spinning Devices Man did just that when developing support for removable media for OS/2. OCO. People with Jaz, Zip and similar drives were very happy to take the latest incarnations and report (mostly) their failures. Talk to Dr David "Jikes" Shields about releasing source. Or Steve "JFS" Best. Both have become famous (and I rather think) admired for releasing code to the world that may or may not work. You will find users mostly want something that works; many appreciate having the in-principle ability to fix it themselves if it's broken. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
