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."

Comments

Re:Given the choice

[jg]

RMS has been very civil in our extensive mail exchanges.

Theo de Raadt, on the other hand, has not been civil in the slightest.

Re:Just because 'they' oppose "the one true way".

[swillden]

The straightest path for the project may have been OSS, but I seriously doubt that OSS is the ONLY WAY.

Yes, it is the only way, because OSS is *part* of the OLPC project's goals. The project not only wants to provide laptops, it wants to provide *open* laptops, so that kids in impoverished countries can poke into the internals and learn how their computers work, and how to change how their computers work. The project wants to help educate a new generation of programmers and computer scientists as well as provide all of the other educational benefits. OSS is critically important to that goal.