On 2/14/07, Steven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 23:00]:
>Darren Spruell wrote:
>> Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
>> engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
>
>Since when is the GPL a close source license?
>
GPL isn't, but a NDA would require that the documentation, or
specifications used to write the driver not be shared. So despite
assurances, how could they _not_ obfuscate details in the code if
they're to abide by the terms of the NDA? At the same time, how can
they obfuscate the code if it's written in terms of the GPL?
It seems a little lame to write code under a license like the GPL if
you have to sign a NDA to do so. I mean, what takes precedence, and
who decides? Does the Linux Driver Development team lack courage to
demand open documentation for their drivers so that they can release
them properly under the terms of the GPL, or are they actually that
deluded that they think that this can work?
The problems would be similar if one signed a NDA, and then released
code with a BSD license. GPL, however, _requires_ that the code be
shared, and so I imagine it will be more problematic. Seriously,
how do you resolve the dilemma ethically?
We haven't actually seen what will happen in this situation (unless we
have, before my time, but I don't see anyone linking examples). Maybe
instead of paranoia we should give the benefit of the doubt. From the
FAQ:
"[NDAs] are usually signed either to keep information about the
device private until it is
announced at a specific date, or to just keep the actual
specification documents from
being released to the public directly. All code created by this
NDA program is to be
released under the GPL for inclusion in the main kernel tree,
nothing will be obfuscated
at all."
He might *actually* be telling the truth. Maybe not all NDAs are
conspiracies against us, but are just marketers trying to keep things
quiet, and beyond that the companies don't care. That code might
actually be readable!
--then again it might not. We'll see.
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the
cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,
another implements them? Or is this covered when people say "reverse
engineer"?
-Nick
