When is the Last Time You Booted to Windows?

[Andy Green]

Guy Fraser wrote:

> Rather than promote fear, why not lobby to get the dbkm or dkbm
> what ever it is that will make dynamic binary kernel module 

The reasoning is, why accept to be locked out of sources for the modules
when the module exists because of the donation of work that generated
the kernel itself openly?  People who sank a lot of work in the kernel
become grumpy when they see that work applied to devices that cannot
really be owned and controlled by the user.

> system available. If developers have a static API to design 
> there modules, there could be more drivers available. Some 
> devices manufacturers have secrets they are legal bound to 
> protect, that prohibit them from releasing source, and it is 
> a fact of life. If you keep kicking the manufactures in the 

The manufacturers accept such restrictions only because they know a
binary-only distribution is acceptable, for example, in the Windows
world.  At the edges already Linux challenges this assumption (because
the benefits using it brings outweigh the risk from loss of obfuscation
of the code) and can bring about change.  So it isn't enough to consider
the situation as it is, one also needs to consider what Linux can make
be by its policies towards closed source modules.

I don't buy the story that certain classes of device can never have open
source drivers regardless of all considerations.  If Linux is desirable
enough to become a no questions design-in, then it will impact decisions
all around it and that can be in a positive way.

-Andy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060218/5b837fc0/attachment-0001.bin>