Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:31:14PM +0200, Marius ROMAN wrote: Programming documentation is restricted also because the hardware is full of bugs and like Theo said there is no errata for a lot of hardware. On the other hand, some vendors go as far as releasing even the schematics and gerbers for their hardware: http://wiki.emqbit.com/free-ecb-at91 CL
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Darren Spruell wrote: On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Who said it was? If you mean what I said about the same problems we already have, I mean that we don't have specifications and documentation from which a reliable driver can be written. Problems with magic numbers and unclear implementation details have been pointed out in the past. Reverse engineering can only take you so far, no? Oh right, the Greg KH stuff. I think he should not take half the deal. They should refuse to sign NDA, just like RMS insists. Even if the driver was BSD licensed it wouldn't help you since a linux driver is incompatible with a BSD driver. This is not a BSD v GPL issue at all. This is about some stupid developer accepting a deal when he should fight on. Hardware specifications must be available to all people. Anything else is immoral. # Han
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open source/free software user do about it? Sue Linux for anti-competitive behavior? //art
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Artur Grabowski wrote: Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open source/free software user do about it? Sue Linux for anti-competitive behavior? Nah. You can't sue `linux,' complain to Greg Kroah Hartmann. Most GPL fans don't want this deal at all. Explain Greg this is unethical. Just like when you email a manifacturer of hardware requesting documentation. # Han
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:51:36PM +0100, Han Boetes wrote: Most GPL fans don't want this deal at all. Real GPL fans appear to be an increasingly diminishing subset of Linux users today though. They're being supplanted by users who want snazzy 3D desktops and simply embrace ``Free Software'' because it's free of cost.
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
* 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? Thankfully, there are people like Theo, and the OpenBSD developers, who see this problem more clearly than most. Keep up the good work, and fighting the good fight. In the meantime, I'm going to work on an e-mail to send to Greg Kroah-Hartman expressing my concerns regarding the Linux Driver Development team's recent decision. -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
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
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
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. As an optimist, I tend to agree with you. He hasn't really started something new - he's really just making it public knowledge with an open letter to hardware makers how FOSS drivers get made. A lot of shops must avoid the FOSS world because they don't want to take on another platform for support, no knowing that the community will. Realistically, while a company may require an NDA while they want to keep things secret, I expect having an unobfuscated driver out there will negate any need to enforce it longer than necessitated by marketing departments. I also expect that any drivers written in this manner will be discluded from the mainline linux kernel tree unless they are absolutely clearly written to a degree that the top deciders in Linux will accept it regardless of NDAs. Manufacturers who continue to be troublesome will see their drivers go away or require more work at least for users. If I can choose between two SCSI cards in Linux where one is supported by generic kernels, but the other requires either binary blobs or firmware loaders, or patching my own kernel with their code, I'll pick the easy one hands down. I think manufacturers will see that. 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? I imagine that's the best case scenario here, but that certainly does make things harder and everyone's a little more likely to lose something in translation. It's one of those situations where it *can* work, but no one wants to do it that way. It's not as bad as reverse engineering without a working model, but it is still reverse engineering because you're building your own specifications based on something that isn't the specifications. -- Regards, Neil Schelly Senior Systems Administrator W: 978-667-5115 x213 M: 508-410-4776 OASIS Open http://www.oasis-open.org Advancing E-Business Standards Since 1993
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Hello! On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:42:43AM -0500, Nick ! wrote: [...] 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? That's exactly what was meant by reverse engineer. Then, by reading the GPL code w/o hardware docs, you see only *that* the GPL driver is doing thisorthat, but not *why* exactly it's doing thisorthat at a specific point. And if thisorthat (e.g. peeking and poking around magical I/O addresses, using magical values/bit masks) doesn't work as it should, you don't know exactly in what way it deviates from the hardware spec, as you don't have access to it. I.e. difficult debugging, troubleshooting, maintenance. And the point of Theo co is that it'd be much easier with open documentation. And you could identify points where things are done in an unnecessarily twisted/dirty/... way using the docs and eliminate them, even if you used a GPL driver as *additional* reference, together with docs. -Nick Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/14/07, Nick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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: We have seen this happen in the past. A couple of examples have already been given, such as when one particular BSD project went under NDA with one particular storage adapter manufacturer and came out with crap drivers for the community. This has also been an item of HUGE debate over the last couple of years in this project's community. Search archives and Undeadly for specifics. I'm providing a couple of resources in this posting. [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, Read: the _created code_ is to be released. Not the _docs_ and _specifications_ that led to the code. What do you think helps keep driver code maintainable and improved as time goes on? Code itself, or documentation and specifications? nothing will be obfuscated at all. This statement is wrong and just plain idiotic. Something is obfuscated; the original specifications from which working, maintainable drivers can be written. The code itself *is* obfuscation. This is the reason our community doesn't petition hardware manufacturers to give us driver source code; it's nearly useless. 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! Don't make excuses for the project guy (as well intentioned as he may be), and certainly don't make excuses for the hardware vendors who screw their customer base. The code will be readable to some degree, without a doubt, but it will *not* accurately provide implementation documentation so that a working, maintainable driver can be authored by other open source projects. Driver code can be filled with magic numbers, meaningless constants, and inadequate commenting that results in a working implementation for the Linux kernel source tree but insufficient information for reverse engineering that crap for any other implementation. In short, it's next to useless. 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? That *has* been the approach in many cases. And it sucks. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/index.html http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550 http://kerneltrap.org/node/7184 http://kerneltrap.org/node/6497 DS
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/14/07, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I imagine that's the best case scenario here, No, the best case scenario is that the good intentions of the Linux driver project would be focused on getting vendors to provide open documentation from which any OSS project, including Linux, can produce good drivers. People say it can't happen, but the OpenBSD project has shown on more than a few occasions that it can and does work. The only difference here is one project has a pair of big brass balls hanging between their legs and the other doesn't. DS
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Programming documentation is restricted also because the hardware is full of bugs and like Theo said there is no errata for a lot of hardware. On 2/14/07, Rod Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 10:42:43, Nick ! wrote: ... 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? ... And what, you get a new chunk of code that replicates misinterpretations of the hardware specs? An often quoted open source adage Many eyes make all bugs shallow fails when the number of eyes being permitted to look at the hardware documentation is restricted. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] The avalanche has already started, it is too Rod Dorman late for the pebbles to vote. - Ambassador Kosh
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/14/07, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:24 AM 2/14/2007 -0700, you wrote: No, the best case scenario is that the good intentions of the Linux driver project would be focused on getting vendors to provide open documentation from which any OSS project, including Linux, can produce good drivers. People say it can't happen, but the OpenBSD project has shown on more than a few occasions that it can and does work. The only difference here is one project has a pair of big brass balls hanging between their legs and the other doesn't. DS Unfortunately, Theo's might not even be big enough - many of the h/w venders are now writing drivers with cough, cough DRM included - which will never be OS'd. Windmills anyone? Maybe we need some input from developers (if they get a minute to spare) - what are the probabiliites that we can maintain current drivers now that Vista is driving the market? Can we do anything to help? In general, the developers have already given that advice. Boycott uncooperative vendors' products, give your money to those that provide documentation. No, the OpenBSD community will not put a dent in the picture when compared with the market share of the rest of the customer base. However, even tiny hits to the bottom line become large issues to address when shareholders realize that the company's bottom line isn't where it _could be_. Small though it be, such action can make a difference, especially if the right people feel the pain in the right way. The FOSS community has to realize that this approach will *never* happen if everyone just rolls over and gives up on it (or in to it.) DS
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:24 pm, Darren Spruell wrote: On 2/14/07, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I imagine that's the best case scenario here, No, the best case scenario is that the good intentions of the Linux driver project would be focused on getting vendors to provide open My statement wasn't an opinion, so please don't say I'm wrong. His question was about how this project could lead to drivers for BSD. And it ~could~ be that cleanroom implementations of the driver code developed for GPL projects get reliable enough under BSD here. That is the best case scenario here - that drivers are written well enough that reliable specs can be drawn up from them and be useful. I didn't in my email suggest I thought this was the best way to make drivers. I just answered the question he asked about creating BSD drivers based on GPL'd drivers without the original specs. Please don't correct my statements out of context. -- Regards, Neil Schelly Senior Systems Administrator W: 978-667-5115 x213 M: 508-410-4776 OASIS Open http://www.oasis-open.org Advancing E-Business Standards Since 1993
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/14/07, Marco S Hyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? [...] Thanks for clearing that up Hannah, Neil, Rod, Darren, and Marco. I always see the bitching on here (usually leading to a license war) and never was entirely sure what the big deal was. -Nick
OT? Is this bad news?
Hi, I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of curiosity took a look. Free Linux Driver Development FAQ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware documentation? If it is, how can OpenBSD users, and users of other FOSS, help? -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of curiosity took a look. Free Linux Driver Development FAQ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware documentation? If it is, how can OpenBSD users, and users of other FOSS, help? -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well as I understand it one of the things they are looking for are specs on which to base their own drivers. Also as I understand it, they cannot work under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public. This is only bad if the specs are released under a licence that would prohibit OBSD people from looking at them. If companies go so far as releasing the specs to Linux people, I can't see that happening, although of course using the GPL'ed Linux drivers released under such conditions would/might be problematic. Maybe it's time for the OBSD dev community to make similar overtures, though, just in case Jeff R
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Jeff Rollin wrote: Also as I understand it, they cannot work under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public. They say quite the opposite at http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html: Q: How are you going to write a GPL driver by signing an NDA? Is it going to require a binary blob or some other way of obfuscating the code? A: No, not at all. I have written many drivers after signing NDAs with companies. They 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. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:38:51AM -0700, Steven wrote: Hi, I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of curiosity took a look. Free Linux Driver Development FAQ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware documentation? If it is, how can OpenBSD users, and users of other FOSS, help? -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] I read the same thing in the German 'linuxuser' magazin this morning, if I were the hulk, everything would have went green. Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing? There is no use to binary source drivers, they are not free/usable, whether they are distributed as binaries by the vendor, or written under NDAs doesn't make a difference at all. You know what happends when I tell my linux friends? Their argumentation goes along the lines of: You shouldn't be such a idealist, be more pragmatic. Damn it! cut 70 lines of green anger Okay sorry, there is no use the preach to the saints here, but what should one do against it? Good moment to once more thank the OpenBSD devs for their 'long term pragmatics' instead of short lived 'well, now it works'. Regards, ahb
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:04:08PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of curiosity took a look. Free Linux Driver Development FAQ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware documentation? If it is, how can OpenBSD users, and users of other FOSS, help? -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well as I understand it one of the things they are looking for are specs on which to base their own drivers. Also as I understand it, they cannot work under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public. This is only bad if the specs are released under a licence that would prohibit OBSD people from looking at them. If companies go so far as releasing the specs to Linux people, I can't see that happening, although of course using the GPL'ed Linux drivers released under such conditions would/might be problematic. Maybe it's time for the OBSD dev community to make similar overtures, though, just in case Jeff R The guy announcing this put together a FAQ (linked from the /. article) explaining that he has no problem with signing NDAs, but that the code will not be obfuscated in any way. So it seems that he's not going to push for companies to release specs. Also in the FAQ is that he's not concerned about the BSDs. To me he's saying he doesn't care about open source or free software, as long as it works in Linux and can have the GPL license on it then it's fine. There *may* be some companies that release specs for this. I doubt any of the Linux people would dream of discouraging that directly. But any companies sitting on the fence on that issue now have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight under NDA, while pretending to be open. So it seems like this does suck, not just for *BSD, but for Linux as well. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/darrin/ |
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 13/02/07, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff Rollin wrote: Also as I understand it, they cannot work under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public. They say quite the opposite at http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html: Q: How are you going to write a GPL driver by signing an NDA? Is it going to require a binary blob or some other way of obfuscating the code? A: No, not at all. I have written many drivers after signing NDAs with companies. They 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. -- I see; thanks for the correction/clarification Jeff
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
* Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070213 12:30]: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:04:08PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Linux Driver Development FAQ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware documentation? If it is, how can OpenBSD users, and users of other FOSS, help? Well as I understand it one of the things they are looking for are specs on which to base their own drivers. Also as I understand it, they cannot work under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public. The guy announcing this put together a FAQ (linked from the /. article) explaining that he has no problem with signing NDAs, but that the code will not be obfuscated in any way. So it seems that he's not going to push for companies to release specs. ... There *may* be some companies that release specs for this. I doubt any of the Linux people would dream of discouraging that directly. But any companies sitting on the fence on that issue now have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight under NDA, while pretending to be open. So my fears are probably well grounded then. So it seems like this does suck, not just for *BSD, but for Linux as well. Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open source/free software user do about it? -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:59:52PM -0700, Steven wrote: Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open source/free software user do about it? Well, since Greg Kroah-Hartman seems to be at the focal point of this, he'd be a good person to educate as to why this solution isn't as good as he thinks it is. He invites questions about this program and gives [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that purpose. I'd like to make some points. He probably believes he's really doing a good thing. If you think you're doing good and people start tearing you down it's natural to get defensive. DO RAISE THE ISSUES, but there's no reason to be unduly nasty. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/darrin/ |
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/13/07 7:15 PM, Andreas Bihlmaier wrote: I were the hulk, everything would have went green. Why? If people want to use blobs or write copyrighted code or GPL code, let them do so. Free world... Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing? There is no use to binary source drivers, they are not free/usable, They believe they can use them, and they obviously some kind of work. It's about quality, philosophy and so on if you think things should be free, others have an other opinion, let them. whether they are distributed as binaries by the vendor, or written under NDAs doesn't make a difference at all. We agree but they don't think this is a problem. They probably like signing agreements with big companies. Gives them some feeling of importance. I personally would feel like a dog with any unpaid agreement, but shees, let them! You know what happends when I tell my linux friends? Their argumentation goes along the lines of: You shouldn't be such a idealist, be more pragmatic. Damn it! cut 70 lines of green anger Incredible, go hiking, buy flowers... Okay sorry, there is no use the preach to the saints here, but what should one do against it? Nothing, wasted energy. Good moment to once more thank the OpenBSD devs for their 'long term pragmatics' instead of short lived 'well, now it works'. Yes! +++chefren
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
Actually, the FAQ specifically states that this is *not* about creating binary blobs. As for any BSD involvement, GKH specifically states that he is not involved in the development of any BSD. I am sure there are many BSD devs who are not involved in Linux. For that matter, for all I know there may well be BSD devs who confine themselves to involvement in only one BSD. Jeff.
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 13/02/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07 12:12 AM, Jeff Rollin wrote: Actually, the FAQ specifically states that this is *not* about creating binary blobs. As for any BSD involvement, GKH specifically states that he is not involved in the development of any BSD. I am sure there are many BSD devs who are not involved in Linux. For that matter, for all I know there may well be BSD devs who confine themselves to involvement in only one BSD. Jeff. As I wrote: let them, who cares, free world. Nobody gets murdered or so. +++chefren Let's hope not! Jeff R -- Now, did you hear the news today? They say the danger's gone away But I can hear the marching feet Moving into the street Adapted from Genesis, Land of Confusion http://latedeveloper.org.uk
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/13/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/13/07 7:15 PM, Andreas Bihlmaier wrote: I were the hulk, everything would have went green. Why? If people want to use blobs or write copyrighted code or GPL code, let them do so. Free world... Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing? There is no use to binary source drivers, they are not free/usable, They believe they can use them, and they obviously some kind of work. It's about quality, philosophy and so on if you think things should be free, others have an other opinion, let them. So many times it's been said and yet people still don't grasp the big picture. If the work being done here didn't impact anyone other than the GPL driver writing Linux crew, it would be one thing. When the message sent to commercial hardware manufacturers is we don't want your specifications to be open, we just want to work under NDA so we can produce a single driver by one open source guy, the message is received by said vendor is different. What it tells them is that not releasing open documentation and specifications is the norm, they don't have to disclose anything to the open source community outside of NDA, and that helping produce a GPL driver is good enough. The next step is them thinking that they can just produce said driver themselves. And then that they can just release a blob. In other words, it undermines the (better) efforts of a project like OpenBSD who try to get fully open docs and specs so that OpenBSD can have a functioning driver, FreeBSD can have one, NetBSD can have one, Linux can have one... etc. 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. It's not enough to be good enough. If the damn community can't get this by now, it's going to continue to be an uphill battle. DS
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
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? # Han
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? You still don't get it. The problem is lack of available documentation. CK -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Who said it was? If you mean what I said about the same problems we already have, I mean that we don't have specifications and documentation from which a reliable driver can be written. Problems with magic numbers and unclear implementation details have been pointed out in the past. Reverse engineering can only take you so far, no? DS
