Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965855AbXBOKuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:50:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965809AbXBOKuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:50:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:42246 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965855AbXBOKuV (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:50:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:50:12 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Jeff Garzik Cc: v j , Trent Waddington , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Message-ID: <20070215105011.GA4610@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Jeff Garzik , v j , Trent Waddington , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <9b3a62ab0702142115m4ea7d2c0m6869eb64ef3ee14e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142116n4069e16cl1bc8f546f41d935@mail.gmail.com> <3d57814d0702142147p4eede234ybc9880a38772f55f@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142214p5c33a02am7e783c59ae0a64f1@mail.gmail.com> <3d57814d0702142235i687f8481x4eb72269e7f7fa9b@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142246r7e4eac4bv26c2ed46ff588871@mail.gmail.com> <20070215073238.GC917@redhat.com> <45D42B93.3060209@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45D42B93.3060209@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2153 Lines: 48 On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:44:51AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Dave Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:46:13PM -0800, v j wrote: > > > Using our source code would not benefit anybody but > > > our competitors. > > > > This excuse has been given time and time again, and repeatedly been > > proven false. And as soon as one of your competitors makes their > > drivers open, guess which one gets 1000+ free developers working > > on their code ? > > > Customers also like to buy hardware where they -know- support will not > disappear in a year, when the vendor releases a new chip. Absolutely. This is a very good point. And users of binary blobs like nvidia.ko are already beginning to see this problem. (Nvidia dropped support for "legacy" cards a while back) Only open drivers ensure ongoing vendor-independant support, which is an important thing. I'd not be happy buying a device that I know the vendor is going to ship security updates for a year after release. VJ, how long does your company support each product? And how much engineering effort is spent doing so, vs effort that you could get for free by opening your driver(s) ? > In fact, in some markets, the engineers who wrote the code have often > moved to the next project, by the time the customers actually get their > hands on the end result. Open source means that problems found in real > world field testing can be readily debugged and fixed. Even open drivers have the same problem. Take for example longhaul.c. I lost interest in this a while ago and moved on to shinier new hardware (whilst it still had numerous problems) and rafal picked this up and has been fixing it up like something possessed since. If this were a closed driver, it would have been doomed never to improve. It's a great example of one of the strengths of the open process. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/