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."
In case you were wondering, I was.
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.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
This is a common misunderstanding on Slashdot as well, and is seen every time OpenBSD uses public pressure (after months and years of private e-mail correspondance has failed) to get hardware vendors give hardware documentation (freely, not under NDA) and reasonable distribution rights of firmware. Actually, it is quite sad to see so post extolling the glory of GPL and in the next sentence demands the latest binary only driver.
The chip in question has unique features that no other chip on the market has. Mesh networks and extremely low power consumption.
In other words, good or bad, the part is NOT replaceable without harming the end product significantly.
If there's concern that Marvell (the chip maker) will randomly drop support for their product at one point of time, things should not be left to guesses but this should simply and plainly be covered in the contracts.
I also am susprised at the opinion that OLPC is targeted at OSS community. It has never been isn't and won't be. The goal is efficient, capable product using efficient solutions to solve a concrete proplem, of children having laptops with network connectivity for education, discussions, information exchange, communication and so on.
Don't forget: not everything proprietary is evil. If WindowsCE would provide much better and cheaper solution, OLPC would use it without thinking twice about it. Windows CE in fact *was* considered briefly at a point.
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
But then the OLPC project should say so and not piggy-tail on the percieved value of open source. Understandably, several are disappointed.
I can very well understand why some device manufacturers and software manufacturers require tight NDAs, but I cannot support that motion.
Why does MS have a de facto monopoly on the OS market? Because their software is the best? Don't make me laugh. Because it is the most stable? *smirk* Because it is the most convenient? *pets Apple*
No. Because everyone grew up with it, knows how to use it and, well, old dogs don't really enjoy learning new tricks.
Now, in Africa, we're back to base one. Anything or anyone could get a hold of people who have never had a computer before and have no preferences because they are "used" to a certain flavor or appearance of the OS. There, every OS, every piece of hardware is on equal ground, provided it's affordable.
NDAs and CS software would start to build the foundation of yet another monopoly there. With OS, it is way harder, CS gives you an edge over your competitors. And once the people get "used" to having this kind of chip or that kind of software on their PC, the lock in has started.
So even if it means only 90 out of 100 kids instead of all of them get a PC, OS is the right way to choose in the long run. Just trying to push a computer into every hand right now is quite shortsighted, simply because with CS you're just handing over yet another market to vendor lock in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
..and he can work for a day, teach him the sourcecode and he can work forever.
No, seriously, the OLPC (and other development projects) should be about empowerment. And for this goal open source is the way to go.
If you take a look at e.g. agriculture, you see a lot of (probably) well meant development projects that ended in dependence from some major company and did in the long run as much (or more) harm as they helped.
(And, by the way, OLPC is - intended or not - a political statement though not about free software. But there is a connection.)
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Note to anti-RMS trolls: if you RTFAs you'd see that Stallman and Theo are not spewing anything and, in fact, are quite civil about it. They never suggest that it should be nothing at all instead of proprietary. They state their objections and their suggestions.
RMS even states that some OSS developers signing NDAs (a big no-no to him) so that they can see the specs in order to write Free firmware may be a solution. Hmm, sounds like a COMPROMISE.
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.
Won't somebody please think of the children?
RMS and Theo are trying to use this project as a soapbox to further their own political views, and that disgusts me.
Those political views created open source, without which the OLPC project could not achieve its goals.
These are all good people doing good things, and they mostly share the same goals. There's a disagreement over which of the goals is most important, and some of them (Theo) tend to be a little bombastic, but there's nothing to be disgusted about.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
RMS and Theo are good folks to have, to keep us from wandering down a blind alley. In the case of OLPC, their position has caused the launch of a subproject to create free replacements for the proprietary bits.
At the same time, those replacements don't exist yet, and OLPC is constrained (by power and mesh-networking issues) to use the proprietary bits in the meantime, to be able to ship product.
Sounds to me like a good plan: they know they want both laptops and free software, so they're working on a plan to have both. Which is a very healthy approach!
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
"Those political views created open source, without which the OLPC project could not achieve its goals."
They couldn't? My how full of yourselfs, you all are. The straightest path for the project may have been OSS, but I seriously doubt that OSS is the ONLY WAY.
Those views did not create open source, they created GNU and the FSF. I was freely exchanging sourcecode with friends and fellow developers long before I had ever heard of either of those two organisations.
RMS has been very civil in our extensive mail exchanges.
Theo de Raadt, on the other hand, has not been civil in the slightest.
FTA: There is an ongoing effort to negotiate with Marvell for the right to freely redistribute this proprietary code, while at the same time some OLPC-contracted developers have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to access Marvell's hardware documentation in order to create a free software replacement for it.
It's not the hardware that is proprietary, it's the current firmware that works with it. Marvell is okay with developers writing Free firmware for the hardware, but to do so the developers would have to see the hardware docs. Marvell doesn't want the documentation out in the open for everyone to see, so the developers have to sign an NDA.
May the Maths Be with you!
Theo, like many others, thinks that accepting NDA is a sell-out.
You really seems to be missing the point. One of OpenBSD goals is that "We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to."
Those views did not create open source, they created GNU and the FSF. I was freely exchanging sourcecode with friends and fellow developers long before I had ever heard of either of those two organisations.
Of course you were sharing, just like RMS.
You are right, they didn't create "open source", but they are key to its continued existance.
The problem is that there was a point in time where corporations decided that it was a bad thing, and they started imposing restrictions on that, like NDAs and tough licenses on code.
The FSF was created to protect what you did with your friends, and has the consequence of being useful globally.
> Which is more disappointing? The present situation, or not being used at all?
Most disappointing would be a project which managed to get many kids to have access to laptops and then start them developing towards doing things.. and then left them with software for which security patches were no longer available, effectively cutting them off from the world they have just been shown. That's exactly the kind of thing which leads directly to social problems with no benefit.
We often think about our laptops as two year investments, in which case unmaintainable software doesn't matter. For this kind of project, which may eat up a large fraction of the education budget for a long time, it's not possible to demand constant upgrades. The use of proprietary hardware without a long term (20 year?) guarantee of support is irresponsib;e.
Worse; this destroys much of the value of the project by making it difficult for the kids to fully learn how their laptops work. Something which could really have spread computer literacy becomes much less valuable than it could have been. We begin to see that the Indian government may have had a point that there are better things to spend money on.
Gettys says quite clearly that:
"A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip, the Libertas driver, still under development but also fully functional can be found in our GIT tree.
We are having open firmware for the Marvell wireless chip developed by Meraki. I don't know yet what license that code will be released under, though would expect it would likely be one or more of the MIT, LGPL or GPL licenses; but we'll have to think through the usage cases and needs of the communities involved before we can make that choice."
So yes, open and free drivers and firmwares are being developed as we speak. So is this an issue not about what OLPC will use in the future, but about what they are temporarily using at this very moment?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Intel's Classmate PC is beefier than the OLPC - faster processor (900MHz), 1GB of flash (double the current iteration of half a gig), twice the RAM, XP embedded SP2, and costs about $100 more due to the larger processor and memory.
And due to the closed-source operating system, does not provide the same educational potential as the OLPC. Allowing kids to tinker with the guts of the software is part of OLPC's goals, and the Classmate does not achieve them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The goal is to maximize profits. It's a fucking corporation, not some charitable organization.
If you think you are right, I think you should tell that to the web site management:
The MIT Media Lab has launched a new research initiative to develop a $100 laptop--a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world's children. To achieve this goal, a new, non-profit association, One Laptop per Child (OLPC), has been created, which is independent of MIT.
It's not the standard for-profit corporation as you suggest.
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?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
You can still write software for Windows, you just can't modify the kernel. But the kernel in Windows is very modular and most of the stuff that you'd want to do you can do. Basically, the only thing off limits is the scheduler and vm system. Filesystems, network protocols, etc are all modular. And for the most part writing drivers or extensions for Windows costs the same as Linux. You can do a lot of poking around the NT kernel with out any money. Just download VC++ Express and the Windows DDK/SDKs.
No, not true.
We already had the alternate firmware project underway.
Theo has not helped the situation in the slightest.
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.)
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
It's not as if Marvell is going to pull their technology out of this project after the devices are fielded.
Yes, they will. It is called a "discontinued product", also known as "obsolete".
Theo is asking for documentation on the underlying hardware, in case Marvell decides to no longer support the chipset. That happens all the time, as new products are built and older ones are discontinued. When -- not if -- Marvell decides to no longer provide driver/firmware updates, who is going to support the chipset? If full documentation is available, the OSS community can and, judging by past actions, will.
Considering that this project has the potential to improve education over the entire world, does that not mitigate any other consideration?
No. Hell, if the U.S. decided to invade Sudan, for example, and completely take over -- not the half-assed job they're doing in Iraq, but full-fledged colonialism -- would the potential to improve education, sanitation, infrastructure and nutrition mitigate any other consideration? [Try not to use the word "any" in a context like you did. It can open some horrendous doors.]
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Filesystems, network protocols, etc are all modular.
Assuming you're willing and able to start from scratch, or perhaps from some example code. Having existing, working code to use as your starting point is incredibly empowering. Not only that, there's nothing that convinces you that there's nothing about your computer that's out of your control or beyond your understanding like being able to read, understand and change the code running it.
That second point is one that's difficult for Windows users to really understand. It's hard for me to explain just how powerful a notion it is, but I'll give it a shot. Most people, even most programmers, have a sort of fear of their own machines' complexity. There are numerous ways in which the machine does stuff they don't understand, and that lack of understanding leads to a kind of fear to do things that are unusual and might not work -- and might even have impossible-to-foresee side effects. Even worse, that fear leads them to assume that many things simply cannot be done.
A fully open source system is incredibly empowering in that respect. I remember very vividly the first time I really looked into how my Linux machine boots -- how the boot loader loads the kernel, how the kernel initializes itself then runs 'init', and how init processes inittab and runs the boot scripts. It was like a bolt from the blue when I realized that there was nothing in this heretofore "magical" process that was hidden from my understanding and manipulation. Every service, every process running on my system was ultimately started by init, and I could easily look and see exactly how, and why, and when. When stated that way it seems rather obvious that that's the case, but the impact of that knowledge when you actually see it for yourself cannot be overstated.
The leaders of the OLPC project understand deeply the way in which source is empowering, and it is a crucial aspect of their goals. It's instructive to note that they would not be satisfied with Theo's solution to this Marvell chip issue -- he'd be okay with closed source firmware, as long as it had freely available docs and an open source driver. The OLPC guys want the firmware to be open source as well, and they're working to that end.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I understand that Marvell apparently cannot free their firmware, since it's not really theirs, but I don't see why they cannot provide the hardware specifications.
Anyway I'm sure there are hardware vendors who can deliver the needed hardware and do it without holding back information, for such a big order as OLPC will make. Missed chances and such...
It's not targeted at people who are starving. It's meant for those who, while they have enough food and have a place to live, are uneducated and stuck in poverty.
I doubt that laptops are going to magically educate people, and even if they do help somewhat, maintaining them won't be feasible.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.