Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:39:36AM +0100, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote: On the subject of http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html Now these companies have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight under NDA, while pretending to be open. The OpenBSD project has been made clear more than once how this will hurt Free Software in the long run. Signing NDA's ensures that Linux gets a working driver, sure, but the internals are indistinguishable from magic. It is a source code version of a blob. I'm guessing that you did not read the followup FAQ about the program at: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html Please see the final question and answer on that page. I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. This is not about freedom but about prostitution. All other projects will have to continue to reverse engineer GPL drivers. A very short sighted strategy of yours, but that's just my opinion. I am just disappointed how easily prominent people like you give up freedom, accompanied by clever-sounding excuses. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... -- Stephan A. Rickauer --- Institute of Neuroinformatics Tel +41 44 635 30 50 University / ETH Zurich Sec +41 44 635 30 52 Winterthurerstrasse 190 Fax +41 44 635 30 53 CH-8057 ZurichWeb www.ini.unizh.ch RSA public key: https://www.ini.uzh.ch/~stephan/pubkey.asc ---
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:39:36AM +0100, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote: On the subject of http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html Now these companies have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight under NDA, while pretending to be open. The OpenBSD project has been made clear more than once how this will hurt Free Software in the long run. Signing NDA's ensures that Linux gets a working driver, sure, but the internals are indistinguishable from magic. It is a source code version of a blob. I'm guessing that you did not read the followup FAQ about the program at: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html Please see the final question and answer on that page. thanks, greg k-h
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:06:36AM +0100, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:39:36AM +0100, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote: On the subject of http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html Now these companies have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight under NDA, while pretending to be open. The OpenBSD project has been made clear more than once how this will hurt Free Software in the long run. Signing NDA's ensures that Linux gets a working driver, sure, but the internals are indistinguishable from magic. It is a source code version of a blob. I'm guessing that you did not read the followup FAQ about the program at: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html Please see the final question and answer on that page. I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been said. You seem to have missed: Q: What about the BSDs? A: What about them? They are free to do whatever they wish, I have no input into their development at all, sorry. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. Well, as my goal is to have a GPL driver for everything, I don't see how this can hurt :) Now others can have different goals, and that's great and fine. I'm not saying you can't work on something if you wish to do so. But for you to try to tell me that I shouldn't work to achive my goal, as it somehow conflicts with your goals, is pretty rude, don't you think? There is no reason you can not extend the same kind of offer to companies to help your project achieve success. This is not about freedom but about prostitution. I'm sorry you feel this way. *plonk*
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the GPL. Duh. //art
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Artur Grabowski wrote: Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the GPL. Duh. Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this at all. This deal is meant to divide. # Han
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: | On 14/02/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Artur Grabowski wrote: | Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has |just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the |result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, |companies will be even less motivated to release programming |documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you |simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications |with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but |GPL code only. | | Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole | point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the | GPL. Duh. | | Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this | at all. | | This deal is meant to divide. | | | And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the | FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between | the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue | contributing to NetBSD, is it? | | And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts | with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, | what's that? Oh, we don't? When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in the end, no one profits. Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL... Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
2007/2/14, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts with the GPL It doesn't. It simply doesn't work under Linux. Best Martin
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:06PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: | On 14/02/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Artur Grabowski wrote: | Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has |just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the |result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, |companies will be even less motivated to release programming |documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you |simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications |with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but |GPL code only. | | Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole | point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the | GPL. Duh. | | Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this | at all. | | This deal is meant to divide. | | | And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the | FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between | the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue | contributing to NetBSD, is it? | | And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts | with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, | what's that? Oh, we don't? When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in the end, no one profits. Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL... oh come fucking on! do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again! cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
mickey wrote: oh come fucking on! do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again! On the contrary, this is BSD united with GPL crap. :-) # Han
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the GPL. Duh. Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this at all. I quoted too much. The part I meant was: This will lead to a GPL-lock-in. Yeah, big news. I think people pay too much attention to this. Some clown made a bombastic statement about how things have been working for ages. And by that I mean that people write drivers when they get documentation and that Linux is the Microsoft of free software and they don't give a fuck about neither freedom nor quality of their software and will happily sign an NDA just to add another product to their feature sheet. None of this is new, none of this is surprising. Why give him more than his 15 minutes of fame by spreading his I will bend over for documentation bullshit even further? And if you like conspiracy theories, notice that he's working for Novell and this NDA is good, give us more NDA stance is consistent with the still fresh Novell-Microsoft deal that was (in short): patents are good, give us more patents. //art
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:58:00 +0100, mickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:06PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: | On 14/02/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Artur Grabowski wrote: | Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has |just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the |result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, |companies will be even less motivated to release programming |documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you |simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications |with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but |GPL code only. | | Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole | point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the | GPL. Duh. | | Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this | at all. | | This deal is meant to divide. | | | And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the | FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between | the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue | contributing to NetBSD, is it? | | And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts | with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, | what's that? Oh, we don't? When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in the end, no one profits. Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL... oh come fucking on! do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again! How long have you people been reading these lists? When are people going to realize that Han is just a troll.
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long have you people been reading these lists? When are people going to realize that Han is just a troll. I've been here since 2004 and i never noticed! However i noticed that Han is sometimes bearer of apparently unpopular opinions So you think he is subscribed just to troll? cognacc
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Man I *love* unforeseen consequences! I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been said. You seem to have missed: Q: What about the BSDs? A: What about them? They are free to do whatever they wish, I have no input into their development at all, sorry. This is awesome, you protect the vendors by pretending to provide free code. This is so funny that I have tears in my eyes. The GPL has become the new safe harbor for companies who don't want to play in the open source world. Do you really think Sun is GPLing Java because they think it is the right thing to do? The answer might surprise you; they are doing it under pressure from investors because they are not making money. Now how do you give something away but not really? Exactly, Copyrights + GPL. What a fantastic combination! You get inherent patent protection because no one can use your code and copyrights take care of the rest. Now Sun gets to shut up the open source world; hey we gave you (some) of our code now didn't we? And they get to pretend to be open source friendly to boot! The GPL hippies are beat at their own game :-) The GPL being used to protect companies and IP! Oh the irony makes me tingle. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. Well, as my goal is to have a GPL driver for everything, I don't see how this can hurt :) Sounds like shortsightedness to me. Works for me! Didn't your mommy, or government, tell you to share with others? Now others can have different goals, and that's great and fine. I'm not saying you can't work on something if you wish to do so. But for you to try to tell me that I shouldn't work to achive my goal, as it somehow conflicts with your goals, is pretty rude, don't you think? I am pretty sure your goals are very much the same. Do a s/GPL/BSD/g There is no reason you can not extend the same kind of offer to companies to help your project achieve success. I can't. I am not for sale for some shinny pebbles. This is not about freedom but about prostitution. I'm sorry you feel this way. I am sorry you don't see the damage you are causing. It does illustrate the linux mentality and standards. *plonk* More appropriate would be dee dee dee
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Artur Grabowski wrote: Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the GPL. Duh. Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this at all. I quoted too much. The part I meant was: This will lead to a GPL-lock-in. Yeah, big news. I think people pay too much attention to this. Some clown made a bombastic statement about how things have been working for ages. And by that I mean that people write drivers when they get documentation and that Linux is the Microsoft of free software and they don't give a fuck about neither freedom nor quality of their software and will happily sign an NDA just to add another product to their feature sheet. Now you are making a broad generalisation. It's like saying all muslims are terrorists or all USA people support Bush. I prefer if you keep a neutral stance on the group and reserve your critisism for Greg Kroah Hartmann. For instance Linus Torvalds is firmly against NDA (http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/12/361) If you wouldn't say stuff like this I wouldn't even bother replying. None of this is new, none of this is surprising. Why give him more than his 15 minutes of fame by spreading his I will bend over for documentation bullshit even further? And if you like conspiracy theories, notice that he's working for Novell and this NDA is good, give us more NDA stance is consistent with the still fresh Novell-Microsoft deal that was (in short): patents are good, give us more patents. I think he's quite evil indeed. # Han
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:06:36AM +0100, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote: You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but GPL code only. Well, as my goal is to have a GPL driver for everything, I don't see how this can hurt :) Now others can have different goals, and that's great and fine. I'm not saying you can't work on something if you wish to do so. But for you to try to tell me that I shouldn't work to achive my goal, as it somehow conflicts with your goals, is pretty rude, don't you think? There is no reason you can not extend the same kind of offer to companies to help your project achieve success. Why do you pursue your goal in this way even though Linus and RMS and many other firmly oppose signing NDA's for very good reasons? You are helping Vendors to keep a lock on the documentation. This is unethical! Everyone should have full specifications to a piece of hardware they have purchased! The GPL was written by RMS because he refused to sign an NDA! # Han
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:18 am, you wrote: On 2/14/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this at all. This deal is meant to divide. And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue contributing to NetBSD, is it? And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, what's that? Oh, we don't? Why does everyone want to turn this into a GPL vs. BSD license discussion? It's not the license that is up for debate; rather it's the fact that a driver was (will be?) produced under NDA and bridges are now being burned. It's not a matter of license; if a BSD licensed driver was produced from docs acquired under NDA, the problem would be the same. The Linux camp would have to reverse engineer our driver and we don't like that having to be the only option for anyone. The problem is that drivers are / will be produced *without open disclosure of docs*. It's not that a BSD-licensed driver is better for the community; it's the fact that a driver produced under open docs _makes the docs available to the community for their own driver implementations__. This is something no one should argue about. The problem is the NDA, and the shortsightedness; not the license. DS I think you hit the nail on the head... I am sure even RMS is not in favour of this as it goes against the _spirit_ of the GPL. Perhaps he can update v3 to prevent this?
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Marc Ravensbergen wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:18 am, you wrote: On 2/14/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is becoming one of those topics which goes on way to long, and in which all the modalities applicable to OpenBSD have been exhausted much earlier in the discussion. NDA's bad. Freedom good. Blobs suck. This is policy enforced by the owner of the name OpenBSD. Linux, Gnu and other subjects have their own mailing lists. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Feb 14, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Darren Spruell wrote: On 2/14/07, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux, Gnu and other subjects have their own mailing lists. Only if you operate under the assumption that the actions of these other groups don't undermine the efforts of your own. No, I'm operating under the three (3) assumptions that: a) All us OBSD loyalists have already heard this message. b) All us OBSD loyalists who are going to do something about it have already decided what to do. c) There are no new ideas in the second/third day of a Misc thrash. :-) :-) :-) -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/14/07, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Marc Ravensbergen wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:18 am, you wrote: On 2/14/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is becoming one of those topics which goes on way to long, and in which all the modalities applicable to OpenBSD have been exhausted much earlier in the discussion. NDA's bad. Freedom good. Blobs suck. This is policy enforced by the owner of the name OpenBSD. Linux, Gnu and other subjects have their own mailing lists. Only if you operate under the assumption that the actions of these other groups don't undermine the efforts of your own. What this Linux driver project is doing can seriously impact our ability to get the vendors to release open docs. Look down the road a few years when suddenly the amount of new hardware supported under OpenBSD is at a lesser standard of quality (or reduced). All it takese is for hardware vendors to be led into the comforting knowledge that they don't *have* to release docs since the most popular open source operating system grovels at their feet under NDA. DS
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Feb 14, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Darren Spruell wrote: My alternative is to go blare my mouth on Slashdot, but I'm more than a little outnumbered there. Actually, someone should (has already?) start one of those projects/ campaigns like browse anywhere (http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/) and create a website and a cute downloadable URL snippet-cum-icon and get people to put it all over the cyberverse. Open Hardware Specs, no blobs, no NDA's. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
