On the subject of http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html
Now these companies have a great excuse to keep specs locked up tight

under NDA, while pretending to be "open."
The OpenBSD project has been made clear more than once how this will

hurt Free Software in the long run. Signing NDA's ensures that Linux

gets a working driver, sure, but the internals are indistinguishable

from magic. It is a source code version of a blob.
It now became clear you also don't give a damn about freedom.
Well done, Greg.
-- 
 Stephan A. Rickauer
 -----------------------------------------------------------

 Institute of Neuroinformatics         Tel  +41 44 635 30 50

 University / ETH Zurich               Sec  +41 44 635 30 52

 Winterthurerstrasse 190               Fax  +41 44 635 30 53

 CH-8057 Zurich                        Web  www.ini.unizh.ch
 RSA public key:  https://www.ini.uzh.ch/~stephan/pubkey.asc

 -----------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing that you did not read the followup FAQ about the program

at:

	http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html
Please see the final question and answer on that page.
thanks,
greg k-h

It ia a fucking farce.
You are trying to make sure that maintainers of code -- ie. any

random joe who wants to improve the code in the future -- has LESS

ACCESS to docs later on because someone signed an NDA to write it

in the first place.
You are making a very big mistake.
I have been fighting against this for nearly a decade.
I don't know what you signed an NDA for in the past, but I can ASSURE

YOU THAT OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT THE DOCS CANNOT FIX THE BUGS IN THOSE

DRIVERS SO THEY SUCK MORE THAN DRIVERS WRITTEN WITH FULLY OPEN DOCS.
PERIOD.
You cannot FAQ that problem out of existance.
It is people like you who are closed.

I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has just been

said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the result is a

readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, companies will be even less

motivated to release programming documentation. This will lead to a

GPL-lock-in since you simply replace the vendor not willing to share

specifications with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those,

but GPL code only.
This is not about freedom but about prostitution.
All other projects will have to continue to reverse engineer GPL

drivers. A very short sighted strategy of yours, but that's just my

opinion. I am just disappointed how easily prominent people like you

give up freedom, accompanied by clever-sounding excuses. The price of

freedom is eternal vigilance...
-- 
 Stephan A. Rickauer
 -----------------------------------------------------------

 Institute of Neuroinformatics         Tel  +41 44 635 30 50

 University / ETH Zurich               Sec  +41 44 635 30 52

 Winterthurerstrasse 190               Fax  +41 44 635 30 53

 CH-8057 Zurich                        Web  www.ini.unizh.ch
 RSA public key:  https://www.ini.uzh.ch/~stephan/pubkey.asc

 -----------------------------------------------------------

Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole point

of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the GPL. Duh.
//art

Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this

at all.
This deal is meant to divide.
# Han

I quoted too much. The part I meant was: "This will lead to a

GPL-lock-in". Yeah, big news.
I think people pay too much attention to this. Some clown made a

bombastic statement about how things have been working for ages. And

by that I mean that people write drivers when they get documentation

and that Linux is the Microsoft of free software and they don't give a

fuck about neither freedom nor quality of their software and will

happily sign an NDA just to add another product to their feature

sheet. None of this is new, none of this is surprising. Why give him

more than his 15 minutes of fame by spreading his "I will bend over

for documentation" bullshit even further?
And if you like conspiracy theories, notice that he's working for

Novell and this "NDA is good, give us more NDA" stance is consistent

with the still fresh Novell-Microsoft deal that was (in short):

"patents are good, give us more patents".
//art

Now you are making a broad generalisation. It's like saying all

muslims are terrorists or all USA people support Bush. I prefer if

you keep a neutral stance on the group and reserve your critisism

for Greg Kroah Hartmann.
For instance Linus Torvalds is firmly against NDA

(http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/12/361)
If you wouldn't say stuff like this I wouldn't even bother
I think he's quite evil indeed.
# Han

And this discussion isn't?  There are already plenty of divisions within the

FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between

the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue

contributing to NetBSD, is it?
And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts

with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait,

what's that? Oh, we don't?
Precisely
Jeff.

Why does everyone want to turn this into a GPL vs. BSD license

discussion? It's not the license that is up for debate; rather it's

the fact that a driver was (will be?) produced under NDA and bridges

are now being burned.
It's not a matter of license; if a BSD licensed driver was produced

from docs acquired under NDA, the problem would be the same. The Linux

camp would have to reverse engineer our driver and we don't like that

having to be the only option for anyone.
The problem is that drivers are / will be produced *without open

disclosure of  docs*. It's not that a BSD-licensed driver is better

for the community; it's the fact that a driver produced under open

docs _makes the docs available to the community for their own driver

implementations__. This is something no one should argue about. The

problem is the NDA, and the shortsightedness; not the license.
DS

I think you hit the nail on the head... I am sure even RMS is not in favour of

this as it goes against the _spirit_ of the GPL. Perhaps he can update v3 to

prevent this?

This is becoming one of those topics which goes on way to long,

and in which all the modalities applicable to OpenBSD have been

exhausted much earlier in the discussion.
NDA's bad. Freedom good. Blobs suck. This is policy enforced by

the owner of the name "OpenBSD". Linux, Gnu and other subjects

have their own mailing lists.
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

Only if you operate under the assumption that the actions of these

other groups don't undermine the efforts of your own. What this Linux

driver project is doing can seriously impact our ability to get the

vendors to release open docs.
Look down the road a few years when suddenly the amount of new

hardware supported under OpenBSD is at a lesser standard of quality

(or reduced). All it takese is for hardware vendors to be led into the

comforting knowledge that they don't *have* to release docs since the

most popular open source operating system grovels at their feet under

NDA.
DS

No, I'm operating under the three (3) assumptions that:

	a) All us OBSD loyalists have already heard this message.

	b) All us OBSD loyalists who are going to do something about it

	   have already decided what to do.
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

It doesn't. It simply doesn't work under Linux.
Best

   Martin

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +0000, Jeff Rollin wrote:

| On 14/02/07, Han Boetes <han@mijncomputer.nl> wrote:

| >

| > Artur Grabowski wrote:

| > > "Stephan A. Rickauer" <stephan.rickauer@ini.phys.ethz.ch> writes:

| > > > I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has

| > > > just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the

| > > > result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver,

| > > > companies will be even less motivated to release programming

| > > > documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you

| > > > simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications

| > > > with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but

| > > > GPL code only.

| > >

| > > Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole

| > > point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the

| > > GPL. Duh.

| >

| > Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this

| > at all.

| >

| > This deal is meant to divide.

| >

|

| And this discussion isn't?  There are already plenty of divisions within

the

| FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between

| the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue

| contributing to NetBSD, is it?

|

| And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts

| with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait,

| what's that? Oh, we don't?
When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in

the end, no one profits.
Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I

was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How

does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the

two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL...
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
+++++++++++>-]<....
[ message continues ]

oh come fucking on!

do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again!

cu

--

    paranoic mickey       (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)

How long have you people been reading these lists?

When are people going to realize that Han is just a troll.

I've been here since 2004 and i never noticed!

However i noticed that Han is sometimes bearer

of apparently unpopular opinions
So you think he is subscribed just to troll?
cognacc

On the contrary, this is BSD united with GPL crap. :-) 
# Han

You seem to have missed:

	Q: What about the BSDs?
	A: What about them? They are free to do whatever they wish, I
Well, as my goal is to have a GPL driver for everything, I don't see how

this can hurt :)
Now others can have different goals, and that's great and fine.  I'm not

saying you can't work on something if you wish to do so.
But for you to try to tell me that I shouldn't work to achive my goal,

as it somehow conflicts with your goals, is pretty rude, don't you

think?
There is no reason you can not extend the same kind of offer to
I'm sorry you feel this way.
*plonk*

What's the point of making the driver GPL if only one person is has

the documentation to know how to change it?  Don't you think it's

short sighted to focus on having ``a GPL driver for everything''
Your actions harm efforts of people interested in open documentation.

Hardware vendors will take your offer as a sign that every driver

writer should be willing to sign NDAs.
Adaptec has pulled this stunt in the past: FreeBSD developers agreed

to sign NDAs for documentation, and so Adaptec decided it's acceptable
If someone significant in the open source community offered to write

binary-only Linux drivers for free because his goal was just to have

``a Linux driver for everything,'' wouldn't you ask that he reconsider
And there's no reason Linux can't accept binary only drivers.
I think it's great for Linux to support as many devices as possible,

and I think your reaching out to vendors to help with driver writing

is great as well.  I only wish you wouldn't agree to terms that will

keep the much needed documentation out of other developers' hands.

Why do you pursue your goal in this way even though Linus and RMS

and many other firmly oppose signing NDA's for very good reasons?
You are helping Vendors to keep a lock on the documentation. This

is unethical! Everyone should have full specifications to a piece

of hardware they have purchased!
The GPL was written by RMS because he refused to sign an NDA!
# Han

This is awesome, you protect the vendors by pretending to provide free

code.  This is so funny that I have tears in my eyes.
The GPL has become the new safe harbor for companies who don't want to

play in the open source world.  Do you really think Sun is GPLing Java

because they think it is the right thing to do?  The answer might

surprise you; they are doing it under pressure from investors because

they are not making money.  Now how do you give something away but not

really?  Exactly, Copyrights + GPL.  What a fantastic combination!  You

get inherent patent protection because no one can use your code and

copyrights take care of the rest.  
Now Sun gets to shut up the open source world; hey we "gave" you (some)

of our code now didn't we?  And they get to pretend to be open source

friendly to boot!  The GPL hippies are beat at their own game :-)
Sounds like shortsightedness to me.  Works for me!
I am sorry you don't see the damage you are causing.  It does illustrate
More appropriate would be "dee dee dee"