Slashdot Mirror
Proprietary Parts in OLPC Project Draw Criticism
An anonymous reader writes "The Jem Report is running a story about the recent controversy surrounding the hardware used in OLPC laptops. Some devices require NDA's to write drivers, and some parts require firmware that cannot be freely redistributed. Richard Stallmann and Theo de Raadt oppose the use of such devices. Jim Getty defends OLPC's choice (de Raadts response). Jem Matzan has interviewed all sides and published the answers."
With people like RMS and Theo, there don't seem to be any choices except to do it *their* way. They would definitely pull a "cut off your nose to spite your face" move just to make sure that people haven't forgotten about them or their ideology. They would rather see beneficial projects fail than see them successful without incorporating their values.
It's really kinda sad that they would use something which is not a FOSS issue to raise a fuss.
The OLPC should say what? Their website ( http://laptop.org/ ) doesnt actually tout Open Source all that much so I dont see how you get the impression they are piggy-tailing on any percieved value - its a means to an end, and that end is to put a cheap laptop into as many childrens hands as possible.
RMS and Theo are trying to use this project as a soapbox to further their own political views, and that disgusts me.
...that Theo critizes OLPC & Red hat & friends for accepting to sign NDAS to write open source drivers.
I mean, isn't ironic that the guy that is saying this is the leader of a open source OS with a license that allows people to write propietary drivers not only without giving the specs, but without giving the source?
Theo, why don't you dont start changing the OpenBSD license? BSD is a great license, but if you want to be coherent you may aswell stop calling "OSS unfriendly" to the people that tries to provide open source drivers for some hardware. GPL drivers without NDA are better than nothing. Save your criticism for the company that does NOT release specs neither the source, not for the ones that give a step ahead and allow to write OSS drivers.
Great going Jim. Way to mention exactly why expediency was so important. Far as I can tell, this whole mess could've been avoided (or, if you're being dishonest after all, delayed) by your being more forthcoming as to the exact reasons of your dodgy PR.
Still, this doesn't explain why you've been infusing all your emissions with "the children, oh the children". That's a major red handkerchief to the raging bulls, so to say. I'd like to think it's all part of a PR gear that's stuck, to a degree, inside your head, but Red Hat isn't exactly well-known for its fidelity with regard to the Free Software cause.
Furthermore, I expect I'm just one among hundreds of people to wonder exactly how you think you can get the proper docs out of Marvell and the other vendors of the proprietary chips. If the contracts stipulated that, well, I expect you'd have told us as much already, right? Spilling the beans, all of them, would go a long way toward restoring your reputation and that of the OLPC project in the eyes of much of the European side of the Free Software world, if not the sandbox anarcho-capitalists of Slarshdot (but they're just about beating off to any and all preceived "pragmatism" anyhow).