Re: Challenges with doing hardware bring up with Linux first

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:31:24PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>> Which we know in practice they won't. They'll sit on fixes (often
>> security fixes) and tweak and add private copies of features. In turn the
>> Linux one could then only keep up by adding features itself - which would
>> have to be GPL to stop the same abuse continuing.
>>
>> It's a nice idea but the corporations exist to make money and adding
>> proprietary custom stack add-ons is clearly a good move on their part to
>> do that.
>
> Hence my recommendation that if someone is going to do the work to
> create a 802.11 layer that has shims that work on multiple operating
> systems, it be GPL with explicit exceptions to allow said layer to
> work on legacy operating systems like QNX, et. al.  That way it forces
> the hardware specific code to be released under the GPL --- if they
> want to take advantage of the "write onces, work on multiple operating
> systems" feature.
>
> If someone is going to go through all of this work to make it possible
> --- particularly if it's at a company such as Luis's employer, or any
> other wifi chipset provider --- why should it allow their competitors
> to do closed source drivers?  Better to structure the driver licensing
> such that (a) there is benefit for companies to make a Linux driver by
> using this common stack, and (b) but in exchange, it forces them to
> make a driver which is guaranteed to be usable by Linux by virtual of
> the fact that (1) the native interface is Linux's wireless stack, and
> (2) the license forces them to GPL their driver.

Great points indeed however the GPL code cannot be used by the BSDs,
well it can but they don't wan it. So the only thing we can have is a
completely permissive licensed solution.

 Luis