Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:51:29 +0100 From: Scott Mitchell <s.mitchell@computer.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A FreeBSD NDA Project proposal Message-ID: <19990913005129.60466@lungfish.freeserve.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199909100023.RAA22211@usr06.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 12:23:19AM %2B0000 References: <199909100023.RAA22211@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As nobody else seems to want to jump in here... On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 12:23:19AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > In a more general sense, it occurs to me that it would be useful > to have a pool of coders willing to work on such projects on behalf > of FreeBSD. > > FreeBSD has a big edge on Linux, in that binary-only software is > OK in our community. > > > The intent of this message is to start a dialogue. I'd like to > see the following things come out of it: > > 1) Establish a willingness on the part of some legal > entity, perhaps FreeBSD, Inc., to engage in entering > into non-disclosure agreements with companies, on > behalf of FreeBSD. > > Note: these agreements could be made with the up front > understanding that non-disclosure of source embodying > proprietary information of their hardware is binding > only until other disclosure has occurred (e.g., if Linux > publishes a driver, then FreeBSD could publish a driver, > so long as the comments did not document proprietary > information). A lawyer would need to write this up. > > 2) Establish a pool of volunteers (e.g. normal FreeBSD > developers and the like) who have entered into similar > agreements with the legal entity from #1, so that they > can "hit the ground running" when NDA-ed projects that > would benefit FreeBSD come up. I like this idea -- I suspect that my Xircom driver, for instance, would have happened a lot sooner than it did if I'd been able to say to them 'FreeBSD, Inc. will sign your NDA' instead of 'I'm some guy you've never heard of who wants to write driver, can I have your code?'. Xircom have since made their specs publicly available, but it would be nice not to have to go through it all again next time... As Terry says, we'd have a big advantage over the Linux crowd here. They're always happy to crow about how they support every piece of crappy hardware out there. It would be amusing -- and no doubt advantageous in terms of FreeBSD's user base -- to say that we support product X that the Linux people aren't allowed to look at. > ... > I'm interested in opinions and suggested improvements to this > proposal; I know that free software fanatics may not take kindly > to the idea of accepting non-free software for distribution; if > you feel this way, you are, of course, free to not volunteer. 8-). I personally wouldn't have any problem distributing/working on binary-only modules... would the distribution as a whole still be considered 'open source' though, under whatever definition people want to use? Does it even matter, if the non-free stuff is kernel modules or otherwise not part of the 'core' distribution? Any agreements would also have to ensure that the right to freely distribute any such software wasn't restricted by it being non-free, or developed under NDA, or anything else. Comments? Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" s.mitchell@computer.org | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990913005129.60466>