Pointless ideology?

Posted Sep 2, 2004 21:57 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link]

I seem to recall a story about the whole thing getting started when some guy wanted to modify a printer driver or some such and the vendor wouldn't give him the specs. Richard Stallman, I think his name was.

Posted Sep 3, 2004 2:08 UTC (Fri) by paulusbd (subscriber, #6253) [Link]

I also agree to that having this discussion is very good. However, I think there is a consideration that has not been presented.

I still don't understand why there is this feeling that software must absolutely be free. There is always an exception to everything and I have never heard of a software or hardware developer who has fed themselves or their family by giving away software that took their creativity and hard work to develop. I, however, very much agree that the software community should have the freedom to choose which software they use, free, not free, or both; all while keeping within a framework that is fair to those who use it.

A point in this discussion that I have not noticed, perhaps I'm just in need of new glasses, is the one that deals with proprietary hardware. Most Non-GPL-Compliant Modules are for hardware that has a great deal of custom design to it, if you will. The Non-GPL Modules are compiled by the Vendors (Nvidia, Promise, and others) who wish to keep the inner workings of their ASICs a secret for business reasons. It is a real shame that some type of API mechanism could not be developed to allow a wrapper type driver to keep GPL Kernel Derived code separate from an interface that should remain proprietary and allow it to do so in such a manner as to satisfy all and allow the device in question to operate. I have worked for several companies that have developed specialized hardware for Windows and UNIX that also wished to port a driver to Linux. I was fortunate enough to be involved in a few of these ports and gained some insight into the “Whys” of the issue. The problem we ran into was how to make a driver that exploited the capabilities of the hardware without broadcasting the trade secrets that made the hardware unique to all of our competitors in the form of reverse-engineerable source code. A great number of secrets can be revealed, including flaws (I challenge any of you to develop an ASIC without flaws, even after 3 to 4 rolls) in how certain code is written to 'talk' to ASICs.

If this were not such a worry, the issue with modules would not be an issue. I am just saddened by the attitude of "We don't want any proprietary stuff" when it leaves people out in the cold for no good reason (I know plenty of good arguments have been raised in the issue of closed source software, but hardware interfacing is another issue). A compromise must be struck on this issue or Linux will be deprived of a great number of useful inventions. A great number of us love Linux and what it stands for, but we don't want to give up our toys either! I think the sentiment of "Find another O/S if you want to use that" is just as exclusionary as what closed source software is accused of being.

There are very good arguments on both sides of this issue and all should be considered. What needs to be done is the creation a good solution that would satisfy the development, legal, and end-user communities while allowing companies to keep their secrets.

-Paul D.