[HH] proprietary CPUs

[Tom Metro]

Bill Bogstad wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> So I wonder why this situation doesn't result in a GPL violation.
> 
> My understanding is that for the most common hardware out there, the
> wireless drivers are NOT available as source.   The vendors get around
> the GPL by providing the drivers as loadable modules.   There are
> those who say that this still violates the GPL...

That's what I was led to believe - that simply dynamically loading a
library didn't get around the linking restriction unless the code was
licensed under LGPL.


> ...but the main Linux developers apparently don't agree and are
> unwilling to support legal efforts to enforce this.

That's unfortunate. I wonder why? Are they afraid such action would have
a chilling effect on vendor support for Linux?


> The busybox developers have in the past brought suit against various
> manufacturers and often gotten them to release not only busybox
> related code but also other free software.

I heard (or read) one of the lead developers being interviewed and asked
about this topic. He said he is thinking of withdrawing support for such
suits in the future, as none have led to code contributions back to the
BusyBox project. Seems like a bit of a selfish stance...


> However, in most (all?) cases, the wireless drivers are
> still binary loadable modules.  Typically, the router manufacturer
> didn't write the driver and probably got it under a restrictive
> contract from the wireless chip vendors (sometimes as a binary modules
> so they don't even have the source).

Right, it has always been my assumption that the chipset vendors are the
ones putting together a base Linux distribution, with the OEMs then
customizing it. That way none of their precious proprietary information
ever need leave the building where the chips were designed.

I'd really like to see this issue publicized more by the community, and
effort put into promoting the chipset vendors that don't play this game.
Perhaps someday we'll be able to look for the "open hardware" logo on a
router's box to know it is one that is safe to buy.


> As for OpenWrt being different, I think they still deal with binary
> blobs in many cases.   I suspect the difference is that they rebuild
> everything else from scratch (when the source is available) rather
> then just replacing a few programs/adding new ones.  This wiki page:
> 
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/devel/add.new.platform#making.binary.drivers.work
> 
> talks about it somewhat.

Thanks for the clarification. That does seem to be the case that OpenWRT
still uses binary drivers.


> Since a wireless router without wireless is close to being a paper
> weight, any effort to put FreeBSD on such devices is going to be
> problematic. Lack of MIPS support for FreeBSD is just icing on the
> cake.

Yup, makes sense.

 -Tom