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-Received on Thu Nov 10 2005 - 18:46:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:47 UTC