The issue is that we do not want Linux to be dependent on drivers for which
modifiable source is not available. Some people take this farther, e.g. not
giving free drivers to proprietary Unix vendors or considering the BSD
license "non-free" because UC Berkeley et al. don't want their names used in
other peoples' marketing. But the core issue is that of source access.
A secondary issue is that closed-source drivers confront Linux with other,
even more closed, issues. Consider DVD drivers: DVD isn't merely a closed
spec, it also includes regional lock-outs, pay-per-use mechanisms, and other
"intellectual property" restrictions which are counter to the spirit of free
software/open source as a denial of "intellectual property".
Basically, Linux doesn't exist merely to be a zero-cost OS. It exists
because the people working on it believe there should be no legal
restrictions on ideas: "free" as in "free speech". UDI has the potential
to subvert that goal.
I, personally, think we should go with UDI --- but with restrictions to
insure that it doesn't lead to Linux systems which are dependent on
closed-source drivers.
-- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university--IAA27980.906209194/hilfy.ece.cmu.edu Content-Type: text/plain
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/