Re: [aclug-L] Free software and warez

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm a little tired after writing that 6-page mini-essay on free
software but let's see what I can say about this one.  Probably not as 
much, since I agree a lot with you :-)

Nate Bargmann <ka0rny@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Excellent piece John, enjoyed reading it.

Great.  This is a favorite topic of mine, and it's great to see others 
active in the discussion too!

PS to Clint: perhaps now you realize why PHIL354 was one of my
favorite classes, eh?  (For those of you that don't know, Phil354 is
"Ethics and Computers" at WSU)  There's something special about being
able to justify the theories of a guy that goes around wearing a hat
made out of an old 12" hard disk platter (Richard Stallman) based on
centuries-old philosophical theories.

> What follows is my opinion and may not even be coherent.

That's OK, I don't proofread my posts either :-)  All of my posts
are of course my opinion as well.

> <Opinion>
> I think there can be little doubt among the informed that Free Software
> is the new paradigm.  Commercial wares will be with us for a while and I

The old one, too -- we're reviving it.  At one time, for instance, IBM 
used to give out the OS with their mainframes for free.

The reason we're so successful is that there is simply no way to
compete against us from a non-free perspective.  Netscape has
discovered this.  Either Microsoft will discover this too, and free
their software, or they will eventually be trampled.  It may take a
decade or two to accomplish this, but it will happen.

> see office apps and games as having the longest lifespan, particularly

Commercial office apps are almost ready to be killed by free Linux
alternatives (as has happened with gimp for photo editors).  I predict 
about a year, maybe two at the outset, before free office suite
projects reach maturity.

> with regard to Linux.  What I see as a threat to Free Software and Linux
> is the proliferation of hardware requiring a non-disclosure agreement
> (NDA) between a driver author and the manufacturer.

Very good point.  

> NDAs keep Free Software from supporting the latest PC hardware in a
> timely fashion.  This gives the Free Software community a bad rap of
> being perceived of not being up to the challenge of supporting the
> latest hardware.  Already one of the major distributions, S.u.S.E. has
> taken an approach to supporting certain video cards with an agreement
> with those manufacturers that the X server source will be released Freed
> after some abitrary interval.  I think S.u.S.E. should be commended for
> taking this approach and also for assisting the XFree86 Project, Inc.

Quite rightly so, indeed.  Since their X servers work with any
distribution, I applaud their efforts.

We need look no further than Adaptec for an example of this.  For
years, Adaptec support has been slower, more buggy, and less
featureful than support for other cards like the Symbios or Buslogic
SCSI cards.  The simple reason is that Linux kernel developers had to
reverse-engineer the Adaptec cards to write drivers for them.

Even though Adaptec is now beeing less boneheaded about it, you can
still see the effects because development of Adaptec drivers is years
behind others because of Adaptec's refusal to release specs.

(To be sure, some of the difference is that some of the Symbios or
Buslogic cards simply are better than some of the Adaptec cards, too.)

> Now, back to the topic at hand, whether "cracking" proprietary software
> written for Linux is ethical or not.  What do we do if some company or
> group agrees to supply binaries to the Linux commuity for a fee as a
> result of an NDA?  Should the community support it?  I say if the user

Another sticky question!

> receives a benefit of being able to use the hardware, then ethically
> speaking the fee should be paid (this is a poor example as I don't know
> of any situation where this now exists).  It seems to me that if the NDA
> has some expiration date after which the manufacturer agrees to release
> the specs, then "cracking" this software, or any proprietary software,
> only gives the Linux community a bad reputation of being software
> pirates, FUD that is already common enough.

The Linux community has in the past complied with vendors who wish
nothing to be known about their products until release -- it is
standard to have an NDA and lift it after the official release of a
product.  This doesn't hurt us, but this is generally the only case
where an expiration date applies.

Here's another question: Is it better for the community as a whole if
we refuse to buy (and thus to use) these non-free drivers?  I believe
it is.  The reason is that if everyone purchases the non-free ones,
there will be no incentive to rethink NDA policies or to make free
driver sets.

If OSS/Linux were completely free, there would not be other projects
around that will kill OSS shortly.

This is a long-winded way of saying that if it is possible to write a
free driver for a device, we should not purchase (or crack) a non-free 
one [in general].  However, if it is not possible to write a free
driver [at the moment], I don't know what the answer is.  Another one
to think through!

You make a valid point that if it is something essential for the user,
they should purchase it.  We get into another tricky bit of ethical
theory here (and I may need to consult my books because my memory
fades) -- we can make the argument that if everyone does this, then it
is harmful and wrong.  Is it still wrong for the individual if he does
this, since the impact of his actions alone will be negligable?  I
don't know.

> The best resolution to this problem is convincing hardware manufacturers
> that writing drivers is a burden to them and that freely available specs
> will boost their market share.  It's a tough sell,     but we're used to

Yes!

> the tough sell.  Another solution might be binary modules (drivers) for
> the Linux kernel be supplied with the hardware.  However, I assume the

Some vendors already do this.  The better ones, like SpellCaster (they 
make ISDN boards) even provide source for their Linux drivers.  (Now
THAT is totally awesome!)

> kernel is highly dependent on the modules being of the same version and
> compiled with the same libraries as it.  This creates the problem of

For most thinks, if it matches the major version (kernel 2.0.x, for
instance) it should work if compiled correctly and the kernel is
compiled correctly.  Sometimes, new code for an entire subsystem is
brought in (ie, sound) so changes may be required if the external
interface is modified.

> version skew and I don't see hardware manufacturers willing to go down
> this road either.  Perhaps version 2.2 or later will present a generic

If they release source, they almost 100% guarantee that it will work
on any higher kernel of the save major revision.  And -- friendly
hackers may even port it to the next kernel release if their driver is 
GPL'd and ends up in the kernel proper. 

> driver API that would allow a module to be used with any kernel in that
> major.minor series.

The "include version info on modules" and "support for user misc
device modules" in the kernel configuration are relevant items here.

> NDAs present a vexing problem which I believe can be solved only when
> maufacturers see they are losing market share to those not using NDAs.

Yes.  And as Linux's popularity grows, so will the pressure on
hardware makers to abandon this silliness.

> This will require some hardware manufacturers to step forward and
> actively support Linux.  It is up to us to support those that support
> Linux.

Quite so.  This is why I bought my ISDN card from Spellcaster, for
instance.  They provide full source for their modules, their ISDN
daemons (that handle connection  maintenance and networking
interfaces), and supporting user-land programs.  Not only that, but
Linux is an officially-supported operating system for which they
provide phone tech support for their product.  A great company, all
around, and a pleasure to do business with.

I work for a Linux-friendly ISP, where there are techs that provide
help for people hooking up Linux to them.  (There are more Linux
things coming, I suspect).  My Exabyte tape drive comes from a company 
that has documentation for using it under Linux on their website.
Parts of my computer itself were purchased from a Linux-friendly VAR.
My UMAX scanner comes from a company that releases spacs to Linux
folks, as does my Symbios SCSI controller, my Creative sound card,
etc.  ATI released specs at the time I bought my video card, but in a
stunning act of stupidity, do not any more (!!!)  (There's a
spectacular way to hand the market over to Matrox, who, in a stunning
act of intelligence, decided to release specs recently!)

> </Opinion>


>  Internet | ka0rny@xxxxxxxxxx                   | ancient beast that

Hmm, midusa.net....  No comment lest I open another can 'o'
worms... :-)

-- 
John Goerzen   Linux, Unix consulting & programming   jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade)       www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
---
This is the Air Capitol Linux Users Group discussion list.  If you
want to unsubscribe, send the word "unsubscribe" to
aclug-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx.  If you want to post to the list, send your
message to aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx.