Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:12:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:12:13 -0500 Received: from [207.68.163.82] ([207.68.163.82]:36619 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:11:45 -0500 X-Originating-IP: [192.219.23.189] From: "Allo! Allo!" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Kernel module ethics. Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:11:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 21:11:38.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[589C0870:01C1BFD3] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, The company for whom I work wants to make a linux driver for some of its hardware. On my side I would like the driver to be completely open sourced, and from a customer point of view, its a big plus (a real PITA to maintain closed sourced drivers). On the other hand, the company wants a clear way to make "profit" from the work while still catering to it's customers whish to recompile the driver for just about any kernel version. Here is what they propose... I do not know if what they are proposing is "going too far" regarding kernel module ethics, but I thought I'd ask the question here and see what other people think. The hardware needs a firmware to run. Since this firmware is under NDA, the first compromise is to write the main part of the driver GPL but keep the firmware of the card in binary format. The driver can then load the firmware separately and this should not infringe on the GPL and I'm quite ok with this requirement. Now the problem is that any of our competitor's cards will work with the same closed sourced firmware and GPL engine. In pure capitalist thinking, the company finds this particularly troublesome... The other compromise is to write a closed source part that would not permit the driver to work with another card supporting the same chipset. Is this kind of practice generally accepted or is it frowned upon? The motive of the company is quite clear. If people want to "improve" the driver, they can only improve it for their hardware, not the competitors. There is also a big marketing sales pitch that goes like "we support linux, the others don’t..." It's like if Nvidia did not have linux drivers and ASUS wanted to ship a card with a linux driver that only works with asus cards even though there is one from leadtek with the exact same chipset (assuming that ASUS cannot change the internals of the card). Is the second compromise just "going too far"? Is this better than simply having a 100% closed source driver? Thanks! Daniel Shane _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos est le moyen le plus simple de partager, modifier et imprimer vos photos pr?f?r?es. http://photos.msn.fr/Support/WorldWide.aspx - 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/