On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:18 am, you wrote:

quoted text
> On 2/14/07, Jeff Rollin  wrote:

> > > 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?

>

> 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?