Linux device driver project needs more unsupported devices to work on?

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:10:06PM -0700, Dazed_75 wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Darrin Chandler <dwchandler at stilyagin.com> wrote:
> > If you don't care about free as in speech, but only about free as in
> > beer, delete this now.
> >
> But other people do.  Especially those who own hardware with parts
> they cannot use.

Some care about freedom and others don't. I was just giving a heads up
to those here who do not, so they could skip this completely.

> Again, I think we can agree this is not ideal.  However when you dig
> into it, the project goal is not to sign NDAs or build proprietary
> blobs, but it is to ensure that Linux drivers exist for hardware.  The
> fact that they are willing to go as far as to sign NDAs and develop
> code for the hardware manufacturers who won't do it themselves is not
> a bad thing.  Especially if by doing so those hardware manufacturers
> see the potential.  Maybe it works as a step toward FOSS, maybe not.
> That is more dependent on the individual companies than on anything
> else. In the end, if it makes more people ABLE to use Linux, is that
> not a good thing?

This depends a LOT on why you like Linux in the first place and where
you'd like to see it go. If what you want is a zero cost replacement for
Windows, then the above is congruent with that end.

If what you want is control/choice/freedom, then this actively HURTS
that. Free software is not about beating Brand X (Windows) with Brand Y
(Linux). It's about putting control and choice back in the hands of the
users. BLOBs and incomprehensible drivers written under NDA may run on
"Linux" but do they run on the distro of your choice? chances are good,
but not 100%. Can they serve as a basis for a driver for, or run
directly on *BSD? No. Is there a chance for someone to fork driver
development of a neglected driver? Very little. Choice has been heavily
restricted.

More people being able to use Linux by making Linux more closed and
proprietary makes Linux less of what you liked about it in the first
place. Unless you just want a proprietary OS without paying for it.

The whole reason the FSF has bothered to come up with GPLv3 is that
companies and individuals have been "gaming the system." They try to
look like they are "Open" when they are not, in order to get good PR.
Aside from whether you like GPLv3 or not (I do not), you don't have to
look very far to see this gaming going on. It's all over the place.

Now, we have a "project" with Linux developers saying to companies: we
have no ideals apart from just getting hardware to "just work." Saying
you'd prefer open specs but will sign an NDA invites NDA. Having given
specs to a Linux developer under NDA, does a company have ANY incentive
to provide open specs? No, they've got their PR, and a driver for Linux.

So the user gets a working device, JUST LIKE WINDOWS OR OSX. No usable
source. No specs. No freedom. And if the user wants to use a different
OS than Windows, OS X, or a compatible Linux distro then they are
actually WORSE off than if this über-cool driver project had never
existed, because they company already got to appear open source friendly
without really doing anything for anyone.

Not all things Linux qualify as Free.

Free software is more than just Linux.

Sacrificing the good things about Linux to make it more popular/useable
will hurt it more than help it.

> > The less this project has going on, the more likely I will have quality
> > support for my hardware.

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
dwchandler at stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation