Hi Greg,
I've read your FAQ
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html
which was linked to from Slashdot
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233&from=rss,
and I have some concerns about the program. Now, I realize that
you're trying to get hardware developers on-board so that they'll
give Linux developers the information the developers need to write
drivers for the hardware. However, you state that you'd sign an NDA
to do so.
While it is possible that, after working with Linux developers, some
hardware developers _may_ decide to forgo NDAs, I'm also under the
impression that most haven't historically, nor are likely to in the
future. In fact, this often has the opposite effect where hardware
developers see the NDA as an excuse _not_ to release the
specifications to their hardware, and release binary blobs instead.
My fear is that this program will do much to harm the efforts of
software developers who have been fighting for free, and open,
documentation on hardware specifications. While I'm am not a Linux
user myself, I believe that this will hurt Linux, and other free,
and open source software, in the long run, even if the Linux
community sees immediate benefit today.
I understand that you're trying to do a good thing in a pragmatic
way, but how pragmatic is such a short-term gain, really? What
happens in a couple of years, is there a limit to how long the NDA
can be applied to a piece of hardware? If so, Linux support using
that driver, GPL, or otherwise, may have to be dropped for legal
reasons. What kind of legal nightmares await anyone who tries to
modify, and recirculate the the source code for the driver, under
the terms of the GPL, who wasn't under the NDA?
Of course, if the hardware developers think that this program
legitimizes releasing binary blobs, then I'm sure that you are
already aware of the problem that creates. Support for the hardware
will last exactly as long as they're willing to give the blob to the
community, with no guarantee of bug fixes, or updates. Not to
mention the potential security concerns.
Also, if your write the driver under the terms of the NDA, how do
you avoid obfuscating the source, or using undocumented magic
numbers? I don't think the GPL can prevent this, though it seems to
me that NDAs and the GPL are orthogonal in principle, if not in
practice. NDAs ask you not to share information, GPL requires that
you share it, how do you resolve this conflict in interests? If
it's important to you to write you code under the GPL, then you
morally should abide by the terms of the GPL, and refuse to sign
NDAs.
Anyhow, I'm hoping that you and your team reconsider the direction
that you're planning to go. Not just for Linux, and Linux users,
but for the open, and free software community in general.
Sincerely,
--
W. Steven Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
