Writes darren kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> From: Joseph Jezak:
> >>As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of
> >>writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method
> >>was maintained.
>
> >>To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers
> >>regarding clarification of the specification, but I would welcome
> >>any questions they might have.
>
> So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks?
In order for the OpenBSD folks to have worked this out, they would have
had to go through function by function and ask for approval to use that
function. If refused, they would have had to devise a workaround that
was sufficiently different as to qualify as "new and original" --
without documentation. The example function quoted sounded like it was
actually a macro - probably a small enough chunk of code that there may
not be any logical "new and original" alternative. So, even if we stop
here, we have a cumbersome process that (a) wastes a lot of time, and
(b) is not guaranteed to result in anything that works. But wait,
there's worse! The FSF contract standard generally requires a release
*in writing*. (See documents like "Legal Issues about Contributing
Code to GNU"). Assuming the gnu bcw programmers are serious about
protecting their interests (and they sure sound like they are), and
assuming the openBSD folks are even willing to tolerate this level of
nonsense, then to get the same level of protection each of these
exceptions would then need a separate written release. So, what we're
talking about here is a momumental amount of work that is easily an
order of magnitude more complicated than the actual driver, with no
appreciable benefit to anybody except perhaps the lawyers drafting up
all those releases. No part of this process produces better code,
and no part of this process produces a more secure operating system,
so all this work we're talking about here is way out of scope for OpenBSD.
There isn't really any alternative for Marcus Glocker here either. Now
that he's clearly seen the GPL code, it would be very difficult for him
to produce any code for this hardware a clever lawyer couldn't argue
was "derivative". He's on the "dirty side" of the Chinese Wall now.
Unless he wants to spend 90% of his time working out function by
function copyright releases, the only real alternative he has is to
delete his code & find something completely different of actual value
to work on.
I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows,
for once & for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable
substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo
intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing
fees or restrictions.)
It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
specifications separately. I can understand why though; DMCA would
make that a much more risky affair today than when the Phoenix folks
pioneered the Chinese Wall approach.
-Marcus Watts
