* Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 23:00]:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
GPL isn't, but a NDA would require that the documentation, or
specifications used to write the driver not be shared. So despite
assurances, how could they _not_ obfuscate details in the code if
they're to abide by the terms of the NDA? At the same time, how can
they obfuscate the code if it's written in terms of the GPL?
It seems a little lame to write code under a license like the GPL if
you have to sign a NDA to do so. I mean, what takes precedence, and
who decides? Does the Linux Driver Development team lack courage to
demand open documentation for their drivers so that they can release
them properly under the terms of the GPL, or are they actually that
deluded that they think that this can work?
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?
Thankfully, there are people like Theo, and the OpenBSD developers,
who see this problem more clearly than most. Keep up the good work,
and fighting the good fight.
In the meantime, I'm going to work on an e-mail to send to Greg
Kroah-Hartman expressing my concerns regarding the Linux Driver
Development team's recent decision.
--
W. Steven Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
