Linux-2.6.33-libre released [LWN.net]

How much does the source code cost?

Posted Mar 2, 2010 4:50 UTC (Tue) by shemminger (subscriber, #5739) [Link]

There may well be no source code, at least not in the usual sense. Though some components have embedded CPU, the "firmware" for a lot of stuff is just the output from some CAD tool or other automated programmable gate array tool.

I'll take it

Posted Mar 2, 2010 6:18 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]

Source code in unusual senses would be fine ;-)

The goal is to have the four freedoms. If changes to the software can configure the device to perform different tasks, or to perform better the tasks it already performs, denying these freedoms to owners or users of the devices amounts to inflicting willful harm on them. It's actively putting roadblocks to stop people from using the device to their greatest potential.

Why anyone would tolerate or support this sort of abuse, other than other similar abusers, is beyond me.

I'll take it

Posted Mar 2, 2010 11:58 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

If changes to the software can configure the device to perform different tasks, or to perform better the tasks it already performs, denying these freedoms to owners or users of the devices amounts to inflicting willful harm on them.

Then why don't you limit your efforts to contributing something useful to the kernel, like free firmware replacements?

Why anyone would tolerate or support this sort of abuse, other than other similar abusers, is beyond me.

If you really cared about freedom, you would stop insulting people who exercised the very basic right to choose what works for them.

I'll take it

Posted Mar 2, 2010 13:49 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

I fail to see how "not using the device to its fullest potential" is harming me when I knowlingly buy the device for the potential it does give me as sold.

Quite beside the fact that most of the time I'm *very* far from being able to tweak said device to its fullest, and even when I'm able to do so I usually have much more pressing matters to attend.

Delusion

Posted Mar 5, 2010 5:26 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]

If you think you can know in advance all of the quirks in a product you're going to buy, that will affect you and that the vendor won't be willing to fix, you're deluding yourself.

Even if you already bought the same product before and want to buy another before it goes EOL, vendors often replace parts during the lifetime of a product, and the easy-to-replace firmware that controls it may change from one batch to another, and you may end up with a product with different quirks.

So, no, you don't buy it knowingly because you can't possibly know ahead of time. What you know is what the vendor purports it to do, but you know marketers... If more politicians did 1^{-9} of the good their marketers purport them to do, the world would be a much better place.

Now, of course the only thing between you with the quirks and the dream the vendor sold you is the lack of freedom for *someone* to come up with the solution. It doesn't have to be you, although you can and should help if it matters to you.

How much does the source code cost?

Posted Mar 2, 2010 13:42 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Because they don't "get" open source?
Because the firmware isn't theirs to share in source form?
Because badly written firmware could damage the device, and thus be costly in terms of support?
Because the "source" is a hodgepodge of high-level(ish) source, assembler, plus some binary-only "last minute fixes" they are just ashamed to publish?
Because the tools required to build the firmware can't be freed (for any of the reasons above)?

How much does the source code cost?

Posted Mar 4, 2010 4:44 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]

Why couldn't HW manufacturers share the code and the advantages with customers?

Firmware is typically written by the chip vendor. Their customers - board and system vendors - want a complete working package of hardware, software and firmware and they don't care about the source code for it (except for Linux drivers, since they need to be rebuilt for new kernel versions). You, as an end user, may want source for the firmware, but you are not a customer of the chip vendor so they won't pay much attention to you.

If HW manufacturers are interested in cutting costs, sharing the source code they own costs them nothing, and letting the community contribute to the software actually reduces costs for the manufacturer.

Releasing source code always carries some cost - it requires work on documentation and maybe legal review, and it can be used against the licensor as evidence of patent infringement. That might be balanced by the benefit of outside contributions, but this is questionable. Most of the development of firmware will take place before the hardware is available to the public, and by the time any outside contributors have got up to speed the hardware is likely to be off the market. Also, building and debugging the firmware might in some cases require expensive proprietary tools which would deter outside contributors.

In some cases a common firmware source tree could be maintained over several generations of hardware, or even across entirely different hardware families. In this case, it could well be suitable as a free software project. For example, the gPXE network boot code supports many different network adapters. My employer is one of several network controller vendors that contributes to and distributes gPXE firmware. However, the firmware that runs on our network controller themselves is unlikely ever to be free software.

How much does the source code cost?

Posted Mar 4, 2010 7:16 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]

> Releasing source code always carries some cost

If it's retrofitted into the plan for a product, yes, most definitely. But that's just because of a mistake that was made before. It's like assigning to an open standard the cost of escaping from a proprietary file format.

But if it's planned ahead of time, you can significantly reduce, if not completely do away with legal review. Documentation sure may be nice to have, but we're not asking for documentation, just the source code. If you can also put in the same documentation that your own developers used, that's surely welcome, and it surely wouldn't cost you much.

As for evidence of patent infringement, that argument doesn't hold any water. If you source code could be such evidence, so does the object code, and if a third party is sufficiently suspicious of infringement, a subpoena can take care of getting the corresponding source, even if getting the source isn't actually strictly necessary.