On 2/14/07, Nick !  wrote:

quoted text
> On 2/14/07, Steven  wrote:

> > 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:

We have seen this happen in the past. A couple of examples have

already been given, such as when one particular BSD project went under

NDA with one particular storage adapter manufacturer and came out with

crap drivers for the community. This has also been an item of HUGE

debate over the last couple of years in this project's community.

Search archives and Undeadly for specifics. I'm providing a couple of

resources in this posting.
>     "[NDAs] are usually signed either to keep information about the

quoted text
> 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,

Read: the _created code_ is to be released. Not the _docs_ and

_specifications_ that led to the code.
What do you think helps keep driver code maintainable and improved as

time goes on? Code itself, or documentation and specifications?
> nothing will be obfuscated

quoted text
>     at all."

This statement is wrong and just plain idiotic. Something is

obfuscated; the original specifications from which working,

maintainable drivers can be written. The code itself *is* obfuscation.
This is the reason our community doesn't petition hardware

manufacturers to give us driver source code; it's nearly useless.
> He might *actually* be telling the truth. Maybe not all NDAs are

quoted text
> 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!

Don't make excuses for the project guy (as well intentioned as he may

be), and certainly don't make excuses for the hardware vendors who

screw their customer base. The code will be readable to some degree,

without a doubt, but it will *not* accurately provide implementation

documentation so that a working, maintainable driver can be authored

by other open source projects. Driver code can be filled with magic

numbers, meaningless constants, and inadequate commenting that results

in a working implementation for the Linux kernel source tree but

insufficient information for reverse engineering that crap for any

other implementation.
In short, it's next to useless.
> Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the

quoted text
> cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,

> another implements them? Or is this covered when people say "reverse

> engineer"?

That *has* been the approach in many cases. And it sucks.
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/index.html

http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550

http://kerneltrap.org/node/7184

http://kerneltrap.org/node/6497
DS