Jan Vroonhof wrote:
>
> Henrik Storner <storner@image.dk> writes:
>
> > In a wider perspective, a hardware vendor who wants to support Linux
> > currently has three options:
>
> You forgot one
>
> >
> > 1) Release hardware specs and let someone write a driver.
> > 2) Write a driver himself and release it in binary form only.
> > 3) Provide an API for dealing with the hardware, and have someone
> > develop a driver based on this API (the "Olicom" way).
>
> 4) Write a driver himself and release it under GPL in full (i.e. with
> full source).
>
> Nr 4) is the preferred option from the Linux community point of view.
> This may be totally naive but personally I fail to see what a company
> in the business of selling hardware could gain by not giving out
> source code.
The problem with this is that many of those "in power" think that the
intimate details of tinkering with the hardware gives out vital design
secrets.
Wether or not this is true, those in power at Olicom think so. In the
case at hand, Olicom cannot give out a full-source driver.
The only really good reason I can think to not release specs is
embarrassment on just how crappy some hardware out there is, or just how
buggy it is.
I've never understood why potential evolutionary throw-backs often seem to
be in a position to make these decisions.
All the more reason to support product made by companies who's management
has a clue. Does anyone actively maintain a list of vendors who are helpful
and those who are not?
-Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu