On 2/14/07, Steven  wrote:

quoted text
> * Han Boetes  [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