Generic Kernel API
Reid Linnemann
lreid at cs.okstate.edu
Thu Nov 10 11:46:26 PST 2005
Marcin Jessa wrote:
>
> Sure, but the point is to use native FreeBSD drivers, even if they were
> in closed source binary form and not drivers written for an entirely
> different O.S.
>
> Marcin
I'd like to pose my own semi-educated opinion about this topic:
If hardware vendors are given the ability to provide closed-source,
unfree-licensed binary drivers for hardware, they will probably gladly
do so. They get the bonus of sales to FreeBSD users without having to
give up control or knowledge of their products. I can see the potential
that with those benefits in mind, eventually no vendors would opt to
support the open implementations of drivers for their products, instead
placating users only with binary drivers which are subject to
non-berkeley licensing and that - being that no source is provided to
FreeBSD - will be unsupportable by the FreeBSD project itself. Users
could be inandated with license agreements and use policies, and their
FreeBSD systems be held at the mercy of miserable 3rd party support.
Maybe this isn't even a remote possibility, I'm not involved in release
engineering at all and I definitely am not a soure of authority on this
issue, but the mere thought of this situation makes me shudder. I just
do not want to see FreeBSD no longer be free (as in speech) through a
dependency on restricted binary drivers. I'm not saying kernel
interfaces shouldn't be stabilized to promote compatibility, but I am
saying that caution should be used lest FreeBSD eventually be mangled
and twisted into 'EULABSD'.
Anyway, that's my half-educated opinion. If it's wrong, fantastic! I can
sleep better at night.
--
Reid Linnemann
Senior Systems Analyst
Oklahoma Department of CareerTech
405-743-5422
rlinn at okcareertech.org
-Ars longa, vita brevis-
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list