On the contrary. Its *exactly* the fact that there wasn't a good
*free* driver for the Turtle Beach WaveFront soundcards that made me
write one.
I'm sure you're right about what motivated you, but
I see no contradiction between this and what I said.
Pointing out the lack of a good free driver is one thing,
and advertising a non-free one is another thing.
I think that many of the potential device driver writing
community are of a similar bent: the existence of a proprietary
non-open-source driver acts as a stimulant to produce an open source
one so that we can all benefit.
If awareness of the existence of a tantalizingly useful but socially
unacceptable program will help motivate people to write a replacement,
there is more than one way to spread that awareness among potential
driver writers. It's not necessary to give particulars about where
that program might be obtained, or discuss the issue in a place where
users in general will look for advice on what to install.
One way could be an item in a TODO file, saying, "We need a free
driver for the FOO card, since right now only proprietary drivers
exist." Posting a message to this mailing list would also be
effective, since most people interested in writing drivers probably
read it.
These approaches would spread the word that can do some good, where it
can do some good, without the undesirable effect of advertising the
proprietary program. The awareness of the lack of a free driver will
not motivate people who think a non-free driver is ok. We mustn't
take for granted that people will believe a non-free driver needs a
free replacement, if we seem to say the opposite.
I saw just how much we are failing to get this point across from a
message that was forwarded to me this week. It comes from a sound
card manufacturer. I've blanked out the names of the company and the
card, because the specific company isn't the point.
XXXX intends to put out two equally important pieces for the Linux
community.
1) An OSS Binary driver that can be used in the next few months from a company
called 4Front. This will allow Linux users to begin using their YYYY
immediately, while XXXX becomes more familiar with Linux. This solves the
immediate issue of a YYYY working on Linux.
2) Longer term we will produce a library(.LIB) that can be linked into ALSA,
OSS, or what ever. This library will expose the features of the chip and will
allow for additional functionality to be added. I suspect this is what most
people are actually asking for.
They think that these pieces of non-free software are what the "Linux"
community needs and wants. So far, this looks like a common scenario,
a company inviting us to give up our freedom and use their stuff. But
they continue:
In addition, we will write some form of programmers reference
guide to the chip so that anyone not interested in using the
library can program their own driver.
How interesting! This company is NOT, as some companies do,
deliberately denying us the crucial information. They are willing to
release the specs, willing to cooperate with making a free driver. So
why do they propose to satisfy us with non-free software? It is
because *they don't realize that a free driver is important for us*.
This company is entirely ready to cooperate with us, but they think
that giving us a non-free driver and library is is 99% of the
cooperation we want. They think that releasing the specs is just a
way of being extra nice!
If they got their ideas from reading the OSS README and HOW-TO, that's
what they would naturally think. They don't know we need a free
driver, because we have failed to say so clearly; meanwhile, those
documents forcefully convey the opposite impression.
In the future, let's make sure this is clear.
-
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/