Binary drivers and GPL

Binary drivers and GPL

[Shawn Starr]

Enough is enough! I'm SO tired of hearing this over and over now. But since 
it's raging on I might as well throw some coal into the fire a little ;-)

As much as I would love to see a ban on binary drivers to protect the kernel, 
this issue isn't going away. Not only that but I'd love to see a module 
blacklist in which a non-tainted kernel refuses to load binary drivers that 
are not GPL.

We have to make sure that we restrict binary drivers as much as possible 
because other companies may decide that they don't need to release their 
specs/sources anymore because binary drivers become the norm and because 
their competition is also not releasing their specs/code. This I fear is the 
danger if we go down this road. We can't allow companies to dictate 
indirectly how a kernel will function. 

Shawn.

Re: Binary drivers and GPL

[Shawn Starr]

Because when I look at the big picture.

If I look at a group of industries say, SCSI companies (say there are 3 only).

Company A: Releases specs to community to write a driver.

Company B: Refuses to release anything

Company C: Refuses to release anything

Now, because company A has released its specs Company B and C are free to view 
this and use ideas to improve their products thus hurting company A.

Now company A sees the other companies improving the products due to their 
specs being released and decides that all new products will be closed.

Now we have binary-only modules for all SCSI cards and more dependency on 
companies which to me denies me access to newer kernels due to API 
inconsistancies and thus kills my help in kernel development.

THIS is why I'm against binary drivers in the long run.

On Sunday 05 January 2003 2:54 am, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> Why are you against it, and do you know that 2.5/2.6/3.0 has already
> modelled a method to do make it so painful to prevent binarys from being
> useful for the most part?
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > Enough is enough! I'm SO tired of hearing this over and over now. But
> > since it's raging on I might as well throw some coal into the fire a
> > little ;-)
> >
> > As much as I would love to see a ban on binary drivers to protect the
> > kernel, this issue isn't going away. Not only that but I'd love to see a
> > module blacklist in which a non-tainted kernel refuses to load binary
> > drivers that are not GPL.
> >
> > We have to make sure that we restrict binary drivers as much as possible
> > because other companies may decide that they don't need to release their
> > specs/sources anymore because binary drivers become the norm and because
> > their competition is also not releasing their specs/code. This I fear is
> > the danger if we go down this road. We can't allow companies to dictate
> > indirectly how a kernel will function.
> >
> > Shawn.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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/

Re: Binary drivers and GPL

[Andre Hedrick]

Shawn,

You can go download the IETF iSCSI working document.
You and anyone less can go write a driver to replace me.
I already stated, I will use another platform, like NetBSD if forced.
This is not hardware unless I decide to use a CAM card, then the wrapper
around the object in question becomes the GPL driver.

I originally asked you offline as not to add more noise, while I am
waiting to see what my peers who are the copyright holders have to say
about the issue.

Are you a copyright holder in the kernel today?
If so, I can tell you will object on the LGPL issue and deny.
Where is the files so I can evaluate my position now.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: Binary drivers and GPL

[Shawn Starr]

I am not a copyright holder. The only patch that got added to 2.5 was
very, very minor (trivial fix, 2 lines). My patchset is GPL but I still
have no copyright on this either.

I know you need to make money all and all and so do I. But, I could care
less if people decide to pull out of Linux because they can't make money
from it. It's not going to stop me from working on it for free.

I should mention this you do realize that if companies decide to use
binary only drivers it restricts my ability to work on a kernel thats
in constant development. This also ties in the DMCA (for those in the USA)
by not allowing reverse engineering on hardware and software
(because companies may decide to add 'security features') so now we can't
develop drivers anymore for fear of lawsuits. From there on it gets
really, really messy and that would bring development of drivers to a halt.

Shawn.

 On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick
wrote:

>
> Shawn,
>
> You can go download the IETF iSCSI working document.
> You and anyone less can go write a driver to replace me.
> I already stated, I will use another platform, like NetBSD if forced.
> This is not hardware unless I decide to use a CAM card, then the wrapper
> around the object in question becomes the GPL driver.
>
> I originally asked you offline as not to add more noise, while I am
> waiting to see what my peers who are the copyright holders have to say
> about the issue.
>
> Are you a copyright holder in the kernel today?
> If so, I can tell you will object on the LGPL issue and deny.
> Where is the files so I can evaluate my position now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
>

Re: Binary drivers and GPL

[Andre Hedrick]

Shawn,

Obviously you can not and will not listen to reason.
I can make it become hardware, using a CAM card.

Do not preach to me about DMCA, if it was not for me, you and everyone in
the world would be saddled with it.  The other folks involved in that
issue forced it underground, and I will bet we are saddled with it now.

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/pdf_docs/harmony_brochure.pdf

It is here dude like it or not!  Who is using it?

The PVR people or the SETTOP box people using Linux, and my work!
Read that document and see, where kernel 2.4 drivers for DRM/DMCA are
active in the world.

Who owns a large stake in the copyright for ATA and all of SATA, me.
Yet I have to stand around and wait for it to be quietly stolen, and I
know whos, I know the whens, I know the hows of it all.  I do not know
the exact wheres.  I have a list a mile long and much of the proof.
But I have no money to fight.

There is a precedence about copyright that effects a very big issue, and
bigger than me making money.  I will leave and use another platform over
the issue.

If it is deemed under copyright law and the holders reject binary
modules and the precedene set and used as a legal basis from one statement
in 1995, then it all goes.  Every embedded module, every appliance with a
module, every binary module out there, and a dynamic shift away to other
platforms will result.

So get over yourself, and you have to choice to load or not load a module.
You have a choice to purchase hardware w/ or w/o binary modules.
You have a choice to purchase software as a binary module.

I am part of the latter, but have the ability to stuff it in to a Digital
Rights Management device aka Content Addressable Memory, and provide a
legal gpl driver that is nothing but the original source code wrapper.
You see people are creative enough to find ways to bypass GPL.

If I can do it so can anyone else.
Do I like being forced to use a CAM in order to operate in Linux, NO.

Later ...

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group


On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shawn Starr wrote:

> 
> I am not a copyright holder. The only patch that got added to 2.5 was
> very, very minor (trivial fix, 2 lines). My patchset is GPL but I still
> have no copyright on this either.
> 
> I know you need to make money all and all and so do I. But, I could care
> less if people decide to pull out of Linux because they can't make money
> from it. It's not going to stop me from working on it for free.
> 
> I should mention this you do realize that if companies decide to use
> binary only drivers it restricts my ability to work on a kernel thats
> in constant development. This also ties in the DMCA (for those in the USA)
> by not allowing reverse engineering on hardware and software
> (because companies may decide to add 'security features') so now we can't
> develop drivers anymore for fear of lawsuits. From there on it gets
> really, really messy and that would bring development of drivers to a halt.
> 
> Shawn.
> 
>  On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Shawn,
> >
> > You can go download the IETF iSCSI working document.
> > You and anyone less can go write a driver to replace me.
> > I already stated, I will use another platform, like NetBSD if forced.
> > This is not hardware unless I decide to use a CAM card, then the wrapper
> > around the object in question becomes the GPL driver.
> >
> > I originally asked you offline as not to add more noise, while I am
> > waiting to see what my peers who are the copyright holders have to say
> > about the issue.
> >
> > Are you a copyright holder in the kernel today?
> > If so, I can tell you will object on the LGPL issue and deny.
> > Where is the files so I can evaluate my position now.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group