Re: Developing non-commercial drivers ?

[Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de>]

* Fredrik Markström <fredrik.markstrom@avalonenterprise.com> wrote:

Hi,

> I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting
> Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much
> up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to
> protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC.

Much of this already had been answered, but just to summarize:

* technically, binary drivers are a very bad idea - just look at 
  the utterly broken nv crap. 
* IMHO, as soon as you include some kernel-internal headers, you've
  got an derived work, thus violating GPL (IANAL!)
* binary-only drivers DON NOT protect IP, just delay the process 
  of revealing a little bit.
* try to find out whether the customer *really* has some valueble 
  IP to protect or if it's just it's default oppionion
* *if* the customer still wants an binary-only driver, you check 
  whether the logic to hide can be moved to userland (let the userland
  part talk to the in-kernel driver via 9P)
* let your customer know that binary-only drivers tend to heavily 
  damage a company's reputation in the OSS world, *BAD* for marketing.
    

just my 0.02,-


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------