Two views of freedom and software
Just as some people insist the Earth is flat, or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the whole system is Linux.") is a discussion of a fundamental disagreement over the nature of freedom and software.
The issue at hand, yet again, is that of binary-only kernel modules. But the real, underlying issue has to do with where true freedom is to be found. Would users of a Linux system that disallowed closed-source modules be more or less free? In general, what effect does proprietary software have on freedom?
The point of view championed by Mr. Stallman (and many others) is that proprietary software is always bad for freedom. For example:
According to this point of view, the best case scenario is that a proprietary program weakens the motivation to develop free alternatives, and is thus bad for freedom.
The other point of view says that true freedom means letting the author of a program decide how that program is to be licensed, and letting users choose which programs they wish to use. A binary-only kernel module gives Linux users access to (say) more hardware and thus increases their freedom. Proprietary software can help fund innovation and, even, the creation of more free software. According to this viewpoint, restricting proprietary software not only has an immediate (negative) effect on freedom, it can also impact the availability of free software.
This argument highlights a fundamental division in the Linux community. It can be swept under the rug much of the time - Linux offers much that is good for everybody involved, and philosophical differences can be overlooked most of the time. But the division remains, and it can surface at inconvenient times.
Any vendor of proprietary kernel modules can not help but be nervous about this issue. Kernel developers are, as a whole, more concerned with making the kernel better than with making life difficult for proprietary software vendors (though they are not always entirely concerned about making life easy for those vendors). But the potential for lawsuits from a developer holding copyrights on the kernel source exists. This concern led developer Andre Hedrick to announce his withdrawal from Linux development (though he later backed down from that position).
It is thus good that one thing that might actually come out of this long linux-kernel flame war is a clearer statement of what sort of proprietary kernel modules are permissible. There may even be an early, rough consensus along these lines:
- Binary-only modules are acceptible as long as they stick to the
exported API. This is, essentially, the informal understanding which
has been in force for years.
- Kernel header files are considered to be a part of the exported API - something which has never been clearly stated before. Even more to the point, inline functions in header files (of which the kernel has many) are also deemed to be part of the exported API.
This statement, if it holds, makes it clear that proprietary kernel modules
are generally acceptible.
So far, there have not been public objections to this position. If the
kernel developers can settle behind this sort of statement, vendors will
have a better idea of where they stand, and uncertainty in general will be
reduced. The difference over opinion on freedom will remain, but it need
not get in the way of people and companies actually trying to do things
with Linux.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 5:15 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link] (30 responses)
The author of a program has the right to decide how that program is distributed, and to whom. "Other people" have no right to "study, change and/or redistribute" intellectual property without permission from the author. Mr. Stallman proceeds from his idiosyncratic definition of freedom to accusing those who believe in intellectual property of "domination," using rather loaded language. I agree that speaking of the freedom to dominate others is paradoxical, but Mr. Stallman is the one speaking of it; he's putting words in his opponents' mouths. I suppose it's convenient to believe that the hardware companies don't develop for Linux because they are afraid, or because they are part of an evil conspiracy, or because they want to dominate Mr. Stallman et al. More likely they don't develop for Linux because they have to pay for software development, but they can't recover their investment from Linux users. But why not just release the specs and let the open source community write the drivers? I can think of several reasons. They would have to release their intellectual property to competitors. They would have to support open source developers--the majority of whom don't have Mr. Stallman's technical skill--out of their own pockets. They would have to support end users who don't understand the subtleties as well as the folks on the Linux kernel mailing list. They would have no control over software that affects the performance and usability of their product. They would close the door to developing a commercial product. They would have to deal with legal obligations to their own vendors and suppliers. Mr. Stallman is certainly entitled to his views--I agree with him on many subjects. But I don't think he appreciates that accusing a hardware vendor of "acts of domination" doesn't help build any bridges. What he sees as freedom other people--most people--see as theft. Greg Jorgensen
Posted Jan 9, 2003 6:14 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (16 responses)
I think we'll eventually come up with a reverse-engineered Free SD driver, only one that does not engage the security features of the SD card, which are not used by the Sharp in any case. One of us will probably go to some legal risk in making it. So, my only experience of a closed Linux driver in recent time is hardly a good one. It only makes me wonder how RMS figured all of this out in the early eighties. Bruce
Posted Jan 9, 2003 7:55 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link] (7 responses)
The situation you describe with the Zaurus can be interpreted in other ways. You bought a proprietary piece of hardware, that the vendor delivered with software they (presumably) tested before selling the product. Now you want to install different software, a version the vendor doesn't support and probably hasn't tested. Your desire to upgrade the Linux kernel on the Zaurus does not obligate Sharp to accomodate you; they have lots of other customers with their own demands. Releasing new OS versions and churning the user base every month is not a good thing; only the most hardcore geeks want that. Buying a product doesn't obligate the vendor to support everything you want to do. Maybe Sharp is just throwing up the DMCA as a smokescreen, but more likely they can't re-tune their R&D and development and support as quickly as you'd like them to. Maybe Sharp is stupid or evil, or maybe they just have business priorities and have to make money. Sometimes the open source community applauds a hardware or software company that works with them. But more often the company is ridiculed and insulted the first time they don't comply, or whatever they do is never enough. Not everyone buys into the Stallman worldview. Trying to force everyone to comply is an act of domination. Greg Jorgensen
Posted Jan 9, 2003 12:09 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (6 responses)
The situation you describe with the Zaurus can be interpreted in other ways. You bought a proprietary piece of hardware, that the vendor delivered with software they (presumably) tested before selling the product. Now you want to install different software, a version the vendor doesn't support and probably hasn't tested. Your desire to upgrade the Linux kernel on the Zaurus does not obligate Sharp to accomodate you; they have lots of other customers with their own demands. Releasing new OS versions and churning the user base every month is not a good thing; only the most hardcore geeks want that. What you're saying is that looking at it from the point of view of the vendor, the binary-only kernel module on the Zaurus is not especially inconvenient for the vendor And this is a win for anybody at all exactly how? With an entirely open system, the vendor can choose not to support untested things also. The vendor loses nothing by using only components that can be freely supported. As Bruce points out, the user does lose something. If I'm going to pick a point of view that is best to look at the situation, that point of view is mine as the end user, not the point of view of the vendor doing what it wants to go. Given that, Bruce's analysis is the relevant one. Binary only kernel modules mean you lose! Even if it's find and dandy for the vendor you lose. (At best, you're status quo, if you don't want to upgrade-- but you also have that option with an all-free kernel.) If you can live with that, fine, but Bruce's point is that as a user, it only goes one way. Nothing you say about "another perspective" takes anything at all away from the fact (yes, fact) that binary only kernel modules can be bloody inconveient. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 20:01 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link] (5 responses)
What you're saying is that looking at it from the point of view of the vendor, the binary-only kernel module on the Zaurus is not especially inconvenient for the vendor Yes. With an entirely open system, the vendor can choose not to support untested things also. The vendor loses nothing by using only components that can be freely supported. As Bruce points out, the user does lose something. Maybe you're right. And maybe Sharp has a different opinion. You are free to make your own completely open PDA. It's a big financial risk, of course... you'll have to make decisions and compromises, and no matter what you do you won't please everyone. If I'm going to pick a point of view that is best to look at the situation, that point of view is mine as the end user, not the point of view of the vendor doing what it wants to go. Given that, Bruce's analysis is the relevant one. When Bruce chose of his own free will to buy the Zaurus he accepted the vendor's point of view. If Sharp deceived him in any way he has a legitimate grievance. Otherwise he's just complaining that the Zaurus is less to his liking than it could be. But that doesn't mean Sharp did anything wrong.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 21:18 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (4 responses)
When Bruce chose of his own free will to buy the Zaurus he accepted the vendor's point of view. If Sharp deceived him in any way he has a legitimate grievance. Otherwise he's just complaining that the Zaurus is less to his liking than it could be. But that doesn't mean Sharp did anything wrong. Sure, I agree with you. It's less to his liking, from which he points out that, yes indeed, binary-only modules are a problem because there are people who will find them less to their liking do to the real inconveniences they can cause. It's not a matter of condemning Sharp-- but it's also not a matter of praising them. Bruce's point, as I undestand it, is that there are realistic possible (and existing) problems for individuals resulting from binary-only kernel modules. That is a reason to avoid them. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 23:12 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 10, 2003 16:52 UTC (Fri)
by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link] (2 responses)
RMS's actions (and the GPL) follow from his belief that freedom for
all users is more important than freedom for proprietary-software
companies.
Thus, this question boils down to: Do the kernel authors want to
enforce user freedoms wrt the kernel (and prohibit binary-only
drivers), or not. It seems tastes differ. :-) The beauty of the GPL
is that those who wish to, may require that freedom be preserved, so others
with different tastes must abide by the authors' wishes.
Posted Jan 10, 2003 19:14 UTC (Fri)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
RMS's actions (and the GPL) follow from his belief that freedom for all users is more important than freedom for proprietary-software companies. When speaking of freedom, only the freedom of individuals has any meaning. Ill-defined groups such as "all users" don't have any freedoms except as individuals. When individual freedoms conflict we frequently resolve them by consensus or majority. Since our Constitution doesn't mention any natural right to view, change, or redistribute someone else's source code, that subject is left to the law. Right now the laws in this country grant fairly broad proprietary rights to owners of intellectual property. I don't question that copyrights and patents are abused to maintain monopolies and crush competitors. But the failure of our government and courts to interpret and enforce the laws fairly doesn't nullify the law, or the underlying principle. Nor does unfairness create new freedoms for anyone. I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea that corporations have rights in the same sense as individuals. When I hear about corporations asserting their right to free speech it doesn't seem like they should have that right, not in the same sense that I do. Corporations exist to create profit for their shareholders, not to participate in society as citizens. But in matters of copyright and ownership of intellectual property--including the right to determine if, when, and how to reveal information--the law clearly grants corporations rights and privileges. I believe that those rights cannot override individual rights to free speech, etc., and that's where the DMCA and the nefarious RIAA cross the line. Mr. Stallman claims that his position on freedom is an ethical one. But he's not proposing a new ethic to fill a void; he's proposing to replace our existing ethic--which he happens to disagree with--with his own. His ideas in this regard go against the grain not because they are novel, but because they've been explored and rejected. By saying he represents all users he tries to inflate his personal opinion into something larger than it really is. He doesn't represent me, or many of the users of software that I know.
Posted Jan 19, 2003 13:05 UTC (Sun)
by tbrkic (guest, #9186)
[Link]
So when I am going to buy a piece of hardware and it says Linux supported. I dont want to do a research on Google to find out if it is a binary only module or open source module. For example I bought a graphic card that had linux support but then I noticed that under linux my tv-out isnt supported. Since the linux driver is a binary module my only option would be to write the whole driver from scratch. So it might be that we would have fewer drivers available. But Sharp could have used a BSD kernel for their PDA but they
Posted Jan 9, 2003 9:19 UTC (Thu)
by beejaybee (guest, #1581)
[Link] (5 responses)
Bruce, I deeply respect what you (and RMS) have done for the open source community. However, if I held exactly the vewpoint which you appear to hold, I would have refused to buy a Sharp Zaurus unless/until _all_ the software contained within it was non-commercial. TTBOMK the SD card was designed explicitly for "protection" of copyrighted data. Therefore my reading of the DMCA would be that, within the geographical limits of US federal legislation, attempting to reverse engineer a proprietary SD card driver would indeed violate the DMCA, and you would be liable for action even if your reverse-engineered driver did not in itself permit bypassing the built-in "security" features. I'd certainly hope that the jury would see sense, but there's no guarantee. My advice on hardware devices (be they personal organisers, pocket computers, digital cameras or whatever) containing or dependent on SD cards is to avoid, like the plague. If manufacturers realise that (mis)use of DRM hardware is hurting sales, perhaps they'd find a sensible alternative.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 12:21 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (3 responses)
Part of the concept of "freedom" is the freedom NOT to buy products which are tied to proprietary code. Bruce, I deeply respect what you (and RMS) have done for the open source community. However, if I held exactly the vewpoint which you appear to hold, I would have refused to buy a Sharp Zaurus unless/until _all_ the software contained within it was non-commercial. There's some underlying unstated philosophy here, based around the question: are governments the only entities which can restrict freedom? Traditionally, Americans tend to think "yes". Less government interferece means more freedom. And, on balance, they're probably right; at any rate, many (though clearly not all, just look at individual slavery!) of the most egregious limitations of freedom we've seen have been done by governments. However, it's a dangerously narrow view. Just look at the broadband situation. All it takes is a monopoly, somebody holding the purse strings, or the last mile of wire, or the essential patent, or a monopoly on any number of ther things, to restrict individuals' freedoms. If we really value freedom, then we need to be aware of everybody who can deny us that freedom. So, yes, so long as there are real, true, viable alternatives, and we can choose just not to support the companies that feel the need to put out binary-only kernel modules, then we're in good shape. I'd argue that there's no point in excluding the binary-only kernel modules, since we can always just avoid them. (That's what I do, with the one exception of some annoying proprietary codecs with MPlayer, although that's not a kernel module.) But if realistically you can't buy an all-free system, then your freedom is severely limited by the "freedom" that companies have to release binary-only drivers.
module.) When you get to the point that it's very difficult to find a certain type of supported hardware without resorting to a binary-only kernel module, then where is the freedom? I submit that companies' "freedom" to dominate individuals is less important than individual freedom. When the former is starting to meaningfully restrict the latter, if we believe in a free society, then we need to start to restrict the former. The stiuation I worry about is that we will get to the point that ATI and Matrox do what NVidia does: only release binary drivers for their video cards. Indeed, I'm already dismayed by the fact that Nvidia gets recommended so often to Linux users. If it gets to the point that we must use a binary-only driver for our video card, then we lose, in exactly the same manner that Bruce describes above. A good fraction of the benefits of the Linux OS are simply lost to us. The real question to me is how plausible this scenario is. If not, then there should be no restriction on binary kernel modules. No point in restricting them, in my opinion. On the other hand, if this scenario is likely, then better to nip binary kernel modules in the but now, before it's too late, and before it gets even less politically expedient to do so. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 15:38 UTC (Thu)
by beejaybee (guest, #1581)
[Link] (2 responses)
Clearly not, though legislation _always_ limits _somebody_'s freedom. Nevertheless we have a (generally accepted, de facto) compromise solution; e.g. consumer legislation is based on the premise that the freedom of corporations to rip off consumers requires to be limited, at least to some extent. The fuss about DRM is based on the fact that the entertainment industry is apparently trying to boost its profit margin by removing "traditional" user rights e.g. the freedom to make backup copies for personal use. "When you get to the point that it's very difficult to find a certain type of supported hardware without resorting to a binary-only kernel module, then where is the freedom?" You still have the freedom to not consume. "I submit that companies' "freedom" to dominate individuals is less important than individual freedom. When the former is starting to meaningfully restrict the latter, if we believe in a free society, then we need to start to restrict the former." The point about the Sharp Zaurus is that the _designers_ made a decision to use the SD card storage format. It was unneccessary to make that decision; there are other formats of flash memory card which do not contain DRM features. If one of these formats had been incorporated, then the issue would not have arisen. Where do you stop? I have a 20-year-old Olympus OM1 SLR camera, which uses a proprietary lens mount. New lenses with this mount are no longer manufactured. Now Olympus have no right to "dominate" me by forcing me to "upgrade" my outfit, but I have no need to - in fact, for various reasons and for my particular purposes, I consider the Olympus OM1 to be superior to any new camera currently sold anywhere at any price. In any case I can still get lenses & other accessories through auctions & specialist retailers. Yet I take it that, according to your logic, Olympus should provide a full range of accessories and spares in perpetuity? Get real! I'd love it if they did, but I think they deserve to have the freedom to make that sort of decision. Even if they get it wrong from time to time. If you were sold a 256MB Zaurus on the basis that you could upgrade to a larger memory system, or on the basis that your proposed application would run in 256MB, then you should sue your supplier. If you just _assumed_ that 256 MB would be enough, or that you _could_ upgrade, then IMO you should be prepared to accept that _you_ made a mistake.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 17:02 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link]
Where do you stop? I have a 20-year-old Olympus OM1 SLR camera, which uses a proprietary lens mount. New lenses with this mount are no longer manufactured. Now Olympus have no right to "dominate" me by forcing me to "upgrade" my outfit, but I have no need to - in fact, for various reasons and for my particular purposes, I consider the Olympus OM1 to be superior to any new camera currently sold anywhere at any price. In any case I can still get lenses & other accessories through auctions & specialist retailers. Yet I take it that, according to your logic, Olympus should provide a full range of accessories and spares in perpetuity? Get real! I am real. You are completely and utterly misrepresnting my argument. What you are saying I'm asking for is not at all what I'm asking for. I certainly don't think that Olympus should provide a full range of accesosries and spares in perpetuity. What I am arguing is that they should not have the ability to prevent anbody else from making said accessories and spares. That's what I'm talking about! I'm not talking about forcing companies to do something they don't want to do. I'm talking about limiting how much they can prevent others from doing things. Your misunderstanding of the argument is a very common misunderstanding, but you really need to get your brain around it. It's not required support; it's just an inability to prevent third party support I'm arguing for. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 17:55 UTC (Thu)
by george (guest, #1197)
[Link]
Did you mean formats such as MMC or CF? The Zaurus supports MMC in the same slot where the SD card can go, and it also has a separate CF card slot ... but the issue appears to have arisen anyway. As you pointed out in a previous post, no one is forced to buy products tied to proprietary code. SD memory cards (and NVidia video cards, for that matter, as another post mentioned) are clearly in this category. The article that stimulated this discussion highlighted RMS's view that proprietary software is always bad for freedom, not least because its existence weakens the motivation to develop free alternatives. This discussion serves to illustrate another pernicious effect: by dividing our already small community (between those who refuse to buy products that are tied to non-free code, and those who choose to do so or who are blissfully unaware of the issues), the chances for success of free alternatives are diminished ... whatever happened to MMC, for example?
Posted Jan 9, 2003 15:29 UTC (Thu)
by leandro (guest, #1460)
[Link]
What RMS did he did for all people in general, and for the free software community in particular. Open source was never in his mind, except when he's making the difference clear.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 13:26 UTC (Thu)
by brugolsky (guest, #28)
[Link]
If you have any info regarding reverse-engineering efforts, I'd like to know. (DMCA be damned; I'm willing to fight.)
Posted Jan 10, 2003 10:14 UTC (Fri)
by josh_stern (guest, #4868)
[Link]
Posted Jan 9, 2003 6:32 UTC (Thu)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link] (12 responses)
The point about releasing information (not intellectual property!) to If they just release specs that they have to write anyway to It is good, of course, if they do provide extra help for open-source By supporting (even minimally) open-source developers, hardware vendors In spite of the above, I agree the Linux kernel should continue to allow
Posted Jan 9, 2003 7:58 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (11 responses)
One almost credible reason I've heard to keep drivers hidden is that the company is afraid of people seeing what software patents they might employ. But in reality manufacturers of very complicated devices have documented those devices for driver writers, or have released their own Free drivers, without even one incident of the device being copied because of it. Bruce
Posted Jan 9, 2003 8:23 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link] (9 responses)
Who do you think gets the phone calls and emails from Joe Walmart when their $300 Linux box doesn't display video or play sounds? I've worked for companies that make and sell hardware and one of their biggest costs is support. To minimize support costs they try to control the software. And it's not just end users who generate support requests; developers trying to write their own drivers can chew up the profits from 100 video card sales with support calls and emails. Vendors frequently outsource driver development and enter into exclusive contracts and NDAs. We can debate whether that's a good practice or not but unless we're on the board of directors it really isn't our business. With 95% or more of the desktop market running Windows it's no wonder companies don't allocate resources to Linux. Linux is making inroads in the server market, but it's the desktop market that cares about video cards and sound cards and the majority of devices that vendors don't deliver Linux drivers for. Developing a Linux video card driver may cost as much as writing a Windows driver, but Linux system sales are nowhere near Windows systems sales. I accept that few companies make parts and accessories for my 1978 car; Linux users have to accept that they are still a tiny niche and aren't going to get the same development and support attention as Windows users do. And they certainly aren't going to get management attention for their tiny fragmented market share with people like Richard Stallman calling them names. It's easy from the outside to criticize and second-guess why vendors behave the way they do, and then conclude that they are simply stupid or afraid. In the real world conspiracies are much less common than simple market forces and mundane (but understandable) business decisions. I wholeheartedly support open source development, but the arrogance of some of the more vocal advocates astonishes me. No one likes a know-it-all who spends most of their time telling everyone else how they should be doing things. Greg Jorgensen
Posted Jan 9, 2003 8:53 UTC (Thu)
by mathieu_lacage (guest, #3967)
[Link] (4 responses)
Even if the algorithms used in the chip are well known and many papers have been published on them, the specific power consumption/silicon area/speed/feature set compromise is key to the architecture of the chip and must be documented if you want to release a specification. Clearly, this is a valuable asset for many companies. Also, I think some people underestimate the fact that few companies actually really write usable documentation. Experience with certain chips has shown me the documentation for the microcode interface can be as simple as a header file which contains #defines and a few C comments. This is hardly enough information to write a driver.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 9:49 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (3 responses)
This would be parallell to claiming that Ferrari would be releasing all their motor-secrets if they told the world where to attach the various plumbing for their engines. (such as: "air intake-hose goes here, radiator with a minimum cooling-capacity of foo should be attached over there...")
I don't care *how* the card does its job. I only care how to tell it to do its job.
The argument that releasing this would give significant secrets away to competition is also bogus, reverse engineering of existing drivers is not that hard, you can be sure that if significant knowledge could be gained this way, the competition would already be doing it.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 10:15 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
The time it takes a competitor to reverse-engineer a chip and make a copy is itself a competitive advantage; there's no incentive for a company to help their competition, even if all they are doing is buying enough time to release the next chip. If a company chooses to hold their secrets close--even if you don't think those secrets are all that valuable or secret--what business is it of yours to tell them otherwise? You have the freedom to design and make your own graphics chip. Once you've made the enormous capital investment in R&D and manufacturing perhaps your opinion would change.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 11:52 UTC (Thu)
by macc (guest, #510)
[Link]
write n Bytes to reg <data> but with most "hardware" found today As an example one of the newer DDS Chips
Posted Jan 9, 2003 13:23 UTC (Thu)
by mathieu_lacage (guest, #3967)
[Link]
It is often possible to hack a half-working product without understanding the details of the underlying code but shipping a finished product is an entirely different matter and requires taking care of the details of your code which in turn requires understanding the details of the underlying API. I have noticed a lot of programmers take a very different approach to programming: they just copy/paste code, do not try to understand what they are doing. My (limited) experience has shown me that these programmers usually generate at best buggy and/or overly inefficient code.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 12:25 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (3 responses)
I agree with you. But what matters is what the hardware vendor perceives as their risk, not what you or I think they should do.
Who do you think gets the phone calls and emails from Joe Walmart when their $300 Linux box doesn't display video or play sounds? Woah! Turn that one around. The problem there is not that the all-free philosophy which would cripple the Wall-Mart PCs. The problem is the prevalence of proprietary standards and patented algorithms for video and sound! Free OSes are starting from behind in that arena. One solution is to say, OK, can't use a free OS for everything. Is that really the solution we want? Or do we want the free OS to have the freedom to implement support for the sorts of things people want to do? A lot of the rhetoric about companies' "freedom" really comes down to freedom to dominate. Do we really value corporation freedom to the same level as individual freedom? (Sometimes it seems we value it more, since after all "the economy" is the most important thing.) -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 19:55 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link] (2 responses)
However our society, our laws, our markets do not force you to do that. While companies are free to give their property away, they are also free to keep it secret and profit from it. You and RMS can call that "domination" but it's a fact of our laws and our market-driven economy. RMS was always free to write software and give it away, with source code, and to waive his copyrights. But just because he does it doesn't mean everyone else should have to do it, too. To me it seems like you want someone else to make the big investments in R&D and development and manufacturing, and then give up their real or imagined profits to satisfy a tiny minority who live by novel definitions of the words "freedom" and "property." RMS lives on the goodwill of his followers, like a religious leader. The rest of us have to live in the world of companies and jobs and work for hire and feeding kids. While I may agree with some of his social criticisms I'm not making a living espousing his philosophy. I can, however, make a living writing Windows programs, even if I can't see the source code. Greg Jorgensen
Posted Jan 9, 2003 21:22 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (1 responses)
To me it seems like you want someone else to make the big investments in R&D and development and manufacturing, and then give up their real or imagined profits to satisfy a tiny minority who live by novel definitions of the words "freedom" and "property." If I lived in the ideal world that you live in, I would agree with your criticisms of me. Unfortunately, I live in a world with monopolies on various things that make it difficult for anybody else to compete. I live in a world with a patent system run awry that nobody can do independent development without running afoul of umpteen really lame obvious patents owned by somebody else. It's fine if companies don't want to publish there source code. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem when patents and the DMCA-- i.e. "must protect intellectual property at all costs"-- are given as reasons for free software being inable to use a certain protocol, data format, or piece of hardware. That is where the land grab and the "freedom" of the companies you are so eager to defend has, in true Lockian fashion, started to step past the boundary of somebody else's freedom. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
I'm not defending companies that engage in anti-competitive and litigious practices. However I'm not so eager to accuse every company who does something I don't agree with of "domination" or to try to impose my own philosophy of freedom on the world. I started my comments criticizing Stallman's language and the immediate jump from "no Linux driver" to "big evil corporation stomping on our freedoms." Greg Jorgensen
Posted Jan 21, 2003 19:40 UTC (Tue)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
And yet, this is precisely the excuse given by -- specifically video card manufacturers -- for not *doing* open source drivers... though many people strongly suspect that the real reason is that they're violating patents left and right, and releasing the code would illuminate that, to their detriment.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 13:48 UTC (Thu)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link]
In practice there might be little current tactical advantage in one of the Kernel contributors taking out a lawsuit against a binary only linker on the basis of a GPL violation. In a few years time, when developers of binary-only drivers can no longer afford to do without the Linux market for their hardware, this could well be another matter, in which event the threat of a GPL lawsuit might then be enough to prompt a decision by the offender to GPL licence the disputed code.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 15:32 UTC (Thu)
by leandro (guest, #1460)
[Link]
And also makes it clear that we need a wholly copylefted kernel, as in Hurd, if we ever are to reach reasonable freedom.
Posted Jan 10, 2003 12:19 UTC (Fri)
by leandro (guest, #1460)
[Link]
I do think you exasperation with his insistence on his opinions and beliefs is getting the better over your reporting. You did not stated it clearly, but your phrase is clearly dismissive. The thing is that, given his assumption that things should be named for what they are, not just by mindshare, then he is right.
Richard Stallman wrote "Making a program non-free is denying other people the freedom to study, change and/or redistribute it. It is an act of domination. To speak of the 'freedom' to dominate others is to stretch the concept of freedom into a Russell paradox."re: Two views of freedom and software
The interesting thing about Stallman is that his philosophy, which many find difficult to understand, turns out to be extremely predictive of real life. For example, I am a Sharp Zaurus owner. The Zaurus kernel is entirely Free Software except for one piece, an SD card driver that I am told can not be done in free software due to DMCA. More likely it is because of Sharp or Lineo's contractual agreement with the SD card consortium. Because of that driver, we are stuck with a particular kernel version, and the new kernel, which works much better than the old, simply can't be used by SD card owners. We are reduced to begging Sharp to help us build a driver in secure conditions where we won't be able to remove the source code from the premises.re: Two views of freedom and software
Many, if not most, people find Stallman's philosophy difficult to understand because he's out in left field. People aren't too thick to get it; they just don't agree with him.re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
At last I have a politically correct reason for not owning a Zaurus. ;-)
re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
[T]here are [...] problems for individuals resulting from
binary-only kernel modules. That is a reason to avoid them.
re: Two views of freedom and software
Actually I think one thing that is overlooked is that you couldre: Two views of freedom and software
view Linux as brand that stands for some things. The one I think is essential is the GPL lisence that boils down to the right to see the source. Allowing binary only modules dillutes that and as user you cant be sure what parts are open source.
on the other hand I would know that if anything says Linux supported
on it I would know that I wasnt locked in by the vendor as Bruce
described above. I also think that Linux is so big now that the
hardware vendors would release the drivers even if they were
forced to be open source.
choose to Linux, which I personally think should mean that
they are obliged to have only GPL modules. And we shouldnt forget
that there are reasons that Sharp choose Linux, the first things
that come to my mind is cost and a large developer community. I also think
that they would have choosen it even if they would have been
forced to use open source modules. But they would have put more
pressure on the company doing the SD card or choosen another solution.
Part of the concept of "freedom" is the freedom NOT to buy products which are tied to proprietary code.re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
"There's some underlying unstated philosophy here, based around the question: are governments the only entities which can restrict freedom?"re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
"The point about the Sharp Zaurus is that the _designers_ made a decision to use the SD card storage format. It was unneccessary to make that decision; there are other formats of flash memory card which do not contain DRM features. If one of these formats had been incorporated, then the issue would not have arisen."re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
> I deeply respect what you (and RMS) have done for the open source community.
Seconded. Just got a Zaurus as a Christmas gift, and I've been busy populating a 256MB SD card with code and data. But the inability to upgrade to a recent kernel is really annoying me. I don't blame Sharp, and certainly don't think that they are trying to dominate me -- the Zaurus is the coolest tool that I own. But it boggles the mind that the IPR maximalists have created a market reality in which I can't buy sufficient storage for my Zaurus in order to store free software on it, and use it as I please. This is the future and we need to all wake up to the reality *now*. :-/re: Two views of freedom and software
It's easy to agree with everything in Bruce Perens' note except the re: Two views of freedom and software
implicit claim that his example supports Stallman's side of the debate.
Within the free/open_source (F-OS) software community, there is *no
disagreement* about the idea that it is much nicer for the user, *other
things being equal*, for any software component to be F-OS. Debate
rather focuses on two more radical positions of Stallman's: 1)
proprietary software is immoral and 2) proprietary software should be
boycotted. By his described actions, Perens supports an opposing view
that holds that a closed driver is better than no driver at all, at least
at the level of the individual user's decision.
The example also illustrates why it is generally worth separating items
1) and 2) above. Whereas 1) is stricly a debate about ethics, full
consideration of the merits of 2) involves making complex predictions
about the behavior of people and organizations. Consider the question
of whether Sharp should have made a different decision for the community
and supported a boycott of the driver. We already know Perens'
preference for using the proprietary driver rather than have no driver at
all, so to figure out whether that hypothetical decision by Sharp would
have helped or hurt Perens, we need to predict the hypothetical
probability that there would have been another, F-OS, driver available
in that case. Also, to use expected utility theory, we would need to
numerically rate the relative desirability having a closed vs. F-OS
driver - i.e. is the F-OS driver twice as valuable, 2.5 times as
valuable, etc. There is no straightforward way to arrive at any
consensus about such numbers, so the debate will continue...
>But why not just release the specs and let the open source community writespecs and modules
> the drivers? I can think of several reasons. They would have to release
> their intellectual property to competitors. They would have to support
> open source developers--the majority of whom don't have Mr. Stallman's
> technical skill--out of their own pockets. They would have to support end
> users who don't understand the subtleties as well as the folks on the
> Linux kernel mailing list. They would have no control over software that
> affects the performance and usability of their product. They would close
> the door to developing a commercial product. They would have to deal with
> legal obligations to their own vendors and suppliers.
competitors might be valid (although said competitors may be motivated
to get much the same data by reverse-engineering binaries), but with the
rest of the reasons for hiding hardware data I do not agree with.
support their own R&D and vendors like Microsoft, how on earth would
this create extra obligations to end-users, vendors and suppliers?
developers, but it seems to me bare specs have been enough in most cases,
and brave people have sometimes written working drivers even in cases
where the hardware vendors have refused to co-operate.
will probably end up with lesser Linux support costs, than when trying to
write and maintain binary-only modules. The kernel interfaces keep changing...
And the Linux market is already big enough to be worth hardware vendor support.
binary-only modules that stick to the API. It helps in getting aboard those
vendors that have not yet "seen the light" (but eventually will),
and equally importantly, it helps defuse the FUD about Linux being an
"intellectual property destroyer" that assimilates anything run on it.
I strongly doubt that device drivers expose significant intellectual property regarding the underlying device. The intellectual property in the device is contained in its VSLI implementation and the microcode that it runs (in the case of a sophisticated device like a 3D card), neither of
which are going to be released with an Open Source driver. What is revealed in the driver is a fraction of what you'd need to duplicate the device. And who wants to duplicate last year's design?specs and modules
I agree with you. But what matters is what the hardware vendor perceives as their risk, not what you or I think they should do.specs and modules
It seems to me the main reason behind not releasing the specs for a piece of hardware and its associated microcode (btw, a lot of hardware, not only nifty 3d cards have microcode) is simple and has already been stated by previous readers: the hardware vendor which designed the chip usually does not want its competitors to know the specific engineering/architectural compromise which was made when the chip was designed. specs and modules
But why do you (and so many) assume that releasing the specs for how to interoperate with the chip is the same as releasing documents on how the chip works ?specs and modules
Bad analogy. Most likely only Ferrari manufactures compatible parts for their cars anyway. Platform lock-in is normal in the world of cars. Just go try to buy a generic radiator with a minimum cooling capacity of foo that will fit in a Ferrari (or any other car). Aftermarket companies are free to reverse-engineer and copy parts but they aren't putting the auto mfrs. out of business--the real or perceived quality and compatibility advantage of a brand name is more than enough in that market.specs and modules
This would be true for an API that saysspecs and modules
then set bit execute in reg <cmd>
wait for bit done in reg <status>
the API widens.
quite a lot of "hard" functionality
has been moved to software. now the
API you would have to know about unveils
quite a lot of info how this hardware
ticks inside.
And in quite a lot of cases this will also
expose botched designs and hardware bugs.
from Analog Devices has a bug that shows
that the Designer has not understood adding
and subtracting of signed integers in hardware.
I tend to think that you need to understand the design and the architecture of the underlying API/code to be able to use an API efficiently.specs and modules
specs and modules
You are free to develop your own standards and algorithms, design your own chips and video cards, and make your own computer systems, completely disconnected from the messy proprietary world. And when you've done that, and made those huge investments of time and money, you could choose to give your intellectual property away, not patent anything, and publish all the specs.specs and modules
specs and modules
I share your opinion of monopolies and software patents and the DMCA. I agree that big powerful companies pervert the market to suit themselves.specs and modules
I strongly doubt that device drivers expose significant intellectual property regarding the underlying device.
specs and modules
Some of this debate is analogous to a choice which a free-software library designer chooses when deciding between the LGPL (Lesser or Libary GPL) and the GPL licenses. The LGPL allows linking from non-free software and the GPL doesn't. RMS (as I understand his thoughts on this) promoted both licenses to enable developers to encourage use of free software within a wider range of software products.Tactical and Strategic withholding or use of GPL lawsuits
Two views of freedom and software
> This statement, if it holds, makes it clear that proprietary kernel modules are generally acceptible.
Two views of freedom and software
> even people who wish for more interesting discourse are likely to agree that when Richard Stallman starts posting on linux-kernel, things have probably taken a wrong turn.
> classic Stallmanisms ("Just as some people insist the Earth is flat, or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the whole system is Linux.")