3 ms·

> That is not always possible due to licensing like OpenZFS's kernel module. Aren't these sorts of hardware drivers generally written in-house by the company w

> That is not always possible due to licensing like OpenZFS's kernel module. Aren't these sorts of hardware drivers generally written in-house by the company who makes the hardware? Can't they pick whatever license they want since they own the copyright? > There may also be trade secrets in a kernel module that they do not want to reveal by upstreaming. A company that asserts the existence of "trade secrets" in kernel modules deserves to have to do the extra work. All kernel modules should be open source.

charcircuit 3y ago
>Aren't these sorts of hardware drivers generally written in-house by the company who makes the hardware? Can't they pick whatever license they want since they own the copyright? I gave you an example of OpenZFS where this is not the case. The code in hardware drivers may not be owned entirely by the company. It could have even been done entirely by a third party which may not even still be in business. Even if they were willing to license there would be extra costs in making the code into a state that can be upstreamed. Even then it might just never be accepted. >A company that asserts the existence of "trade secrets" in kernel modules deserves to have to do the extra work. This is an unreasonable stance that hurts end users. If no one exists to maintain the kernel module end users will get stuck on old, insecure, kernel versions. Even if they get updated it prevents people from upgrading until there is a version all drivers support. >All kernel modules should be open source. That is your opinion. It is not true in practice meaning there is utility in having a stable ABI.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > I gave you an example of OpenZFS where this is not the case. But that's not a hardware driver. > It is not true in practice meaning there is utility in having a stable ABI. That would benefit the people who are doing the wrong thing, at the expense of people who are doing the right thing.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >But that's not a hardware driver. It is still a kernel module. >That would benefit the people who are doing the wrong thing, at the expense of people who are doing the right thing. People are going to make out of tree kernel modules regardless. It is only the wrong way because there is not a stable ABI for doing it.
- benj111 3y ago
  >It could have even been done entirely by a third party which may not even still be in business. That's not really a good basis for defending closed drivers. Yes it happens, but it is a scenario we should be trying to avoid.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    The real world is not as nice as you imagine. These things do happen. Sure it's in a businesses best interest to avoid things like this, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      Yes, bad things will happen, but we should be making them harder, not easier.
    - benj111 3y ago
      I don't imagine the world to be a nice place. I think we're coming from different philosophical view points. Murder is going to happen, I would say we should try and prevent it, not just accept that it is going to happen. Yes, that attempt will never be 100% successful, but that isn't a reason not to try and prevent murders to start with.

charcircuit 3y ago

>Aren't these sorts of hardware drivers generally written in-house by the company who makes the hardware? Can't they pick whatever license they want since they own the copyright? I gave you an example of OpenZFS where this is not the case. The code in hardware drivers may not be owned entirely by the company. It could have even been done entirely by a third party which may not even still be in business. Even if they were willing to license there would be extra costs in making the code into a state that can be upstreamed. Even then it might just never be accepted. >A company that asserts the existence of "trade secrets" in kernel modules deserves to have to do the extra work. This is an unreasonable stance that hurts end users. If no one exists to maintain the kernel module end users will get stuck on old, insecure, kernel versions. Even if they get updated it prevents people from upgrading until there is a version all drivers support. >All kernel modules should be open source. That is your opinion. It is not true in practice meaning there is utility in having a stable ABI.

josephcsible 3y ago
> I gave you an example of OpenZFS where this is not the case. But that's not a hardware driver. > It is not true in practice meaning there is utility in having a stable ABI. That would benefit the people who are doing the wrong thing, at the expense of people who are doing the right thing.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >But that's not a hardware driver. It is still a kernel module. >That would benefit the people who are doing the wrong thing, at the expense of people who are doing the right thing. People are going to make out of tree kernel modules regardless. It is only the wrong way because there is not a stable ABI for doing it.
benj111 3y ago
>It could have even been done entirely by a third party which may not even still be in business. That's not really a good basis for defending closed drivers. Yes it happens, but it is a scenario we should be trying to avoid.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  The real world is not as nice as you imagine. These things do happen. Sure it's in a businesses best interest to avoid things like this, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Yes, bad things will happen, but we should be making them harder, not easier.
  - benj111 3y ago
    I don't imagine the world to be a nice place. I think we're coming from different philosophical view points. Murder is going to happen, I would say we should try and prevent it, not just accept that it is going to happen. Yes, that attempt will never be 100% successful, but that isn't a reason not to try and prevent murders to start with.