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

Theo's right

[c0d3h4x0r]

Theo's absolutely right. The masses depend on OSS developers to maintain the drivers when a device manufacturer drops the ball (which they always do at some point), and the developers need complete device documentation to do that right.

I'd also like to note...

[jg]

That much of the silicon we're building *hasn't even taped out yet* (we're testing FPGA versions before they become ASIC's right now). Yet open source drivers for the hardware are already publically available (e.g. NAND driver, camera driver, SD driver).
                                                    - Jim Gettys

Just because 'they' oppose attention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is more disappointing? The present situation, or not being used at all?

Re:Laptops are for the child, aren't they?

[Lemmy Caution]

I think it is supposed to be targetted at populations that don't really have a geek culture as you understand it (my own intuition about geek culture - the gamer/comic/fan version of it, rather than the budding scientist part of it - is that it occurs in the developed world where you have a lower middle class with enough disposable income, but limited cultural capital.)

My skepticism about OLPC has just been captured by someone looking at the numbers (from the Jem report article cited above.) At first, I thought OLPC was simply misguided and well-meaning - I'm starting to view it as a kind of trojan horse.

The real goal of OLPC

[NDPTAL85]

Do you really think that the point behind getting a laptop in every child's hands is to get them to start programming source code? I personally don't think it is. Its to just get them a computer in the first place. Computers existed in the United States before Windows you know but their usage didn't explode until Microsoft created an operating system that was easy enough to use for just about anyone to pick up. The bulk of the population of the United States didn't become programmers. Not even half became programmers. Nor a quarter or a 20th. I predict the very same course of events for India. The OLPC is just something to USE not program on. Thus it being open source or not is irrelevant.

By the way, hasn't the Slashdot population learned yet that the overwhelming majority of humans in any nation are never ever ever going to be programmers?

Re:The real goal of OLPC

[NDPTAL85]

No one _cares_. They just want computers. They can learn to be producers later, AFTER their infrastructure is set up. The only people who care about software being open source are people who basically want to recieve software that is hard to produce for free. Thats basically whats behind the entire open source movement. The "many eyeballs" thing fell flat on its face for code quality and sabotage protection. That only leaves just getting the stuff for free. Lots of people want stuff for free but deep down most people also acknolwedge that you have to pay to get something of value. This is why the business world is not run by geeks, but by businessmen. Gates, Jobs, Ellison? Yeah they're technical folks, all past programmers but to their cores their businessmen much more than they're geeks.

Re:Given the choice

[hahiss]

Actually, that's a pretty tendentious view of "freedom". It is akin to the idea that freedom really must amount to the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no constraints whatsoever. Most of us recognize that to EXERCIZE rights, there has to be constraints. (For example, you aren't free to use my head for target practice or make my car into a pinata, and I'm not free to sneak into your house and beat you with a playstation in the middle of the night.) Since some people's exercize of freedom, at least on occassion (like the examples I just cited), is essentially tied to the *limitation* of the freedom of others, some constraints on freedom yield greater freedom overall. (See, for example, John Stuart Mill's defense of the harm principle in _On Liberty_)

So, the GPL says "You're free to do what you want with this, so long as you preserve that freedom for others." (Just like the harm principle says that "you may do what you wish so long as you do not harm others.") This is not exactly Dr. Evil style, vainglorious efforts for world domination---let alone hypocritical nutjobery. (Especially since RMS doesn't make anyone use his software or his license, and other licenses are Free as well.)

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

[TheRaven64]

When I talked to Alan Kay about the project, he explained that one of the key aims was that only the first generation of the technology should be sold to the countries purchasing them. The designs and software would all be open, and so if the machines were successful local industry could start supplying the demand. If any part of the machine is closed, then this jeopardises the entire project.

Re:marvell documentation

[Blakey Rat]

Because some jackass open source programmer will write a driver which will make the card broadcast on an illegal radio spectrum. And when the investigators come to take a look at it, they'll just look at the brand name of the card. And the company will have to tell them that the reason that card is breaking the rules is because they opened up their documentation without any sort of code signing or approval program. And meanwhile, that wireless card could be interfering with police radios while they're trying to hunt down a killer.