make kernel driver closed

make kernel driver closed

[phani kumar]

Hi all,

Is there any way to make kernel driver closed(not open source)?

Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?


Thanks,
Phanindrakumar.Y
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140125/6e53e4b1/attachment.html 

make kernel driver closed

[Richard Weinberger]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:12 AM, phani kumar
<yakkaladevi.phani@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any way to make kernel driver closed(not open source)?
>
> Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?

No.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

make kernel driver closed

[Anuz Pratap Singh Tomar]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:12 AM, phani kumar <yakkaladevi.phani@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Is there any way to make kernel driver closed(not open source)?
>
> Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do
> it?
>
>
> You shouldn't be posting such questions in this mailing list to be frank.

> Thanks,
> Phanindrakumar.Y
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>
>


-- 
Thank you
Warm Regards
Anuz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140125/d5bfc810/attachment.html 

make kernel driver closed

[Alexandru Juncu]

On 25 January 2014 12:58, Richard Weinberger
<richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:12 AM, phani kumar
> <yakkaladevi.phani@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there any way to make kernel driver closed(not open source)?
>>
>> Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?
>
> No.

That is not true. Technically speaking, you could do that. Think of
drivers from vmware or nvidia.

But to answer the initial question, you could do that, but the Linux
community will highly disapprove of that. The point of open source is
to have a product like Linux that you could freely use, and if you
make something to improve it, submitted back to the community, so
everybody wins.

Because it's strange that you are asking the community for help on
doing this, but you are not willing to give something back to it.

So please, don't make your driver closed.

make kernel driver closed

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 25.01.2014 14:43, schrieb Alexandru Juncu:
> On 25 January 2014 12:58, Richard Weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:12 AM, phani kumar
>> <yakkaladevi.phani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Is there any way to make kernel driver closed(not open source)?
>>>
>>> Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?
>>
>> No.
> 
> That is not true. Technically speaking, you could do that. Think of
> drivers from vmware or nvidia.

My first answer was "GTFO" but then I replaced it with a plain "No". :)

Vmware and Nvidia drivers are very special. And I'll definitely not explain here
the loopholes they are using to keep their drivers in the gray zone of GPL
compliance.

Thanks,
//richard

make kernel driver closed

[Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:43:19 +0200, Alexandru Juncu said:

> That is not true. Technically speaking, you could do that. Think of
> drivers from vmware or nvidia.

The only reason NVidia gets away with it is because it's not actually
a Linux driver.

To save Phani the trouble, I'll point at this quote:

> Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?

The fact you have a Linux driver means you can't use the NVidia loophole.

But let's step back a bit - what business problem are you trying to solve
by making it non-open?  What does that buy you, beside the fact that you get
to support it alone, without the community helping?  Here's a nice bonus:

If you open source it and get it in the mainline kernel, you no longer have
to spend programmer time updating your driver to newer kernels - because every
time some maintainer breaks an API you used, it's now *their* job to fix your
code for you. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140125/c1bbacbf/attachment.bin 

make kernel driver closed

[Jeff Haran]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kernelnewbies-bounces+jharan=bytemobile.com at kernelnewbies.org [mailto:kernelnewbies-
> bounces+jharan=bytemobile.com at kernelnewbies.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:11 PM
> To: Alexandru Juncu
> Cc: Richard Weinberger; phani kumar; kernelnewbies
> Subject: Re: make kernel driver closed
> 
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:43:19 +0200, Alexandru Juncu said:
> 
> > That is not true. Technically speaking, you could do that. Think of
> > drivers from vmware or nvidia.
> 
> The only reason NVidia gets away with it is because it's not actually
> a Linux driver.
> 
> To save Phani the trouble, I'll point at this quote:
> 
> > Description: I have driver, I want make it non-open source. how can I do it?
> 
> The fact you have a Linux driver means you can't use the NVidia loophole.
> 

There are lots of companies with closed source Linux drivers. My former employer Brocade Communications Systems wrote, maintained and shipped their Fiberchannel stack Linux drivers consisting of tens of thousands of lines of closed source code for years and though I am no longer with that company to my knowledge they continue to do so today. That code is in every Brocade Fiberchannel switch out there unless you happen to have an old VxWorks based model that's well over 10 years old and no longer under service contract. And they aren't the only ones.

Granted all the reasons posted for open sourcing your kernel code are valid and it's the right thing to do for the community and all that, but let us not engage in this fantasy that it's impossible to write, maintain and ship closed source Linux drivers for years with no apparent legal repercussions.

Jeff Haran

make kernel driver closed

[Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:19:46 +0000, Jeff Haran said:

> There are lots of companies with closed source Linux drivers. My former
> employer Brocade Communications Systems wrote, maintained and shipped their
> Fiberchannel stack Linux drivers consisting of tens of thousands of lines of
> closed source code for years and though I am no longer with that company to my
> knowledge they continue to do so today

They appear to be in full compliance with the GPL:

http://www.brocade.com/services-support/drivers-downloads/oscd/FabricOS510.page

Note that there's nothing that prohibits a company from shipping a product
that has an open Linux kernel, and the "tens of thousands of lines of
closed source code" is all in userspace.

So unless you have actual proof that the Brocade switches have *kernel* code
that hasn't been offered to the users, they're not (as far as I can tell)
doing anything illegal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140127/a825995d/attachment.bin 

make kernel driver closed

[Jeff Haran]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:15 AM
> To: Jeff Haran
> Cc: Alexandru Juncu; Richard Weinberger; phani kumar; kernelnewbies
> Subject: Re: make kernel driver closed
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:19:46 +0000, Jeff Haran said:
> 
> > There are lots of companies with closed source Linux drivers. My former
> > employer Brocade Communications Systems wrote, maintained and shipped their
> > Fiberchannel stack Linux drivers consisting of tens of thousands of lines of
> > closed source code for years and though I am no longer with that company to my
> > knowledge they continue to do so today
> 
> They appear to be in full compliance with the GPL:
> 
> http://www.brocade.com/services-support/drivers-downloads/oscd/FabricOS510.page
> 
> Note that there's nothing that prohibits a company from shipping a product
> that has an open Linux kernel, and the "tens of thousands of lines of
> closed source code" is all in userspace.
> 
> So unless you have actual proof that the Brocade switches have *kernel* code
> that hasn't been offered to the users, they're not (as far as I can tell)
> doing anything illegal.

I worked there for 8 years. That web page lists open source packages that they use as part of their Fabos product, not the stuff they've developed internally.

Get on a Brocade FC switch, login as root and run lsmod. There are plenty of Fibrechannel modules that will show up that are not listed on that page or anywhere else that is publically available.

It's no secret. Keeping all the Brocade kernel code running is a huge endeavor. I would guess that at this point hundreds of engineers have worked on it over the years.