[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectOpen letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
    Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
    > Dear Linux Kernel ML,
    > I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
    > the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
    > While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and
    > drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into
    > developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to
    > have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support
    > for some of their products altogether.
    As a developer of some "closed source" drivers I can confirm that this
    is exactly the case. I would never consider open sourcing my work just
    because somebody is pointing pistol to my neck. I would leave the whole
    IT business and start doing something else rather than accept this kind
    of mafia-like negotiation methods.

    For a professional developer of any software the decision of open
    sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems
    because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway.
    However a professional developer can release software under GPL only if
    it's considered invaluable or if there is some way to guarantee
    sufficient income. Releasing something under GPL without a guaranteed
    backup plan is like jumping from an airplane without parasuit. If
    somebody forces me to jump form an airplane without a parasuit then what
    would this be called?

    > The bottom line is that the proposed 1st Jan 2008 dead line is unlikely to
    > make any corporations tremble. It is likely to be the day when I will be no
    > longer able to run the latest version of the kernel.
    To us this decision would mean that after Jan 1 2008 we will be out of
    business (at least in the Linux market). Due to the nature of our
    product (kernel level sound API) there is no alternative way to get USB
    working. We could try to develop an alternative API that is user land
    based but this is not going to work. We could also develop an artifical
    user land driver that would require application->kernel->deamon->kernel
    type looping which kills performance and causes massive latencies but it
    doesn't make any sense.

    Our alternatives are to leave the Linux market or to release our code
    under GPL. GPLing means that we will have to give to the major Linux
    companies full rights to do whatever they like with our code. They will
    have complete freedom to adapt our product for their purposes and to
    sell it for profit. There is no law that would require them to pay
    anything to us. There is also no way we could compete with them because
    the current device/module model makes it completely impossible to ship
    precompiled binary modules for all possible kernel
    distributions/versions. At this moment only the companies controlling
    the Linux distributions can sell binary drivers.

    Developers contributing their software to Linux kernel have full right
    to decide if other kernel code using their work is derived or not.
    However is it not fair that developers of some key subsystem like USB
    use this right? There is no alternative USB subsystem that the others
    could use. Of course we could take the earlier USB subsystem before the
    EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL change and ship it together with our software. However
    is this going to work or is it benefit of anybody? No.

    Using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is fair to protect code such as checksum or
    encryption/decryption algorithms is fair. Developers of independent
    kernel modules can use their own code. But the USB subsystem is
    different case because there is no alternative.

    Isn't it somehow suspicious if this kind of decisions are made by
    employees of companies that develop a product which directly competes
    with ours. Maybe this is the way how the free Linux community works.

    I would suggest the Linux kernel developer community should write down
    some rules the developers should agree _before_ they contribute anything
    to the kernel. It's not good to anybody that different developers can
    set different rules for the usage of their code. In particular it's not
    good that anybody can put additional restrictions to
    subsystems/interfaces that have been freely usable for years. The rest
    of the IT industry can then examine the rules and decide if there is any
    idea in investing on Linux based products.

    Best regards,

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-12-18 23:01    [W:0.025 / U:21.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site