It was not my intent to criticize QSSL for not using the GPL, but rather eliminate a misconception that the original author had regarding the GPL.
He implied that it was the General Public License itself that results in ALSA being less optimized than its closed-source counterparts. Admitedly, companies may not want to help create GPL drivers for fear of divulging secrets to the competition. That does not mean that the GPL is inherently to blame for less efficient drivers. This is just an indication of an overly-competitive marketplace with less than honest practice of business.
However, let's not forget closed-source drivers:
If "reverse engineering hardware specs is a breeze with the right equipment (ie. your competitors have it)" [see other reply] then what does it matter if your competitors have the driver source code? Assuming that there is a legal disclaimer associated with the product barring people from reverse engineering the hardware for commercial gain then the end result is the same. Their illegal reverse engineering of your product is just made ever so slightly easier than it already was.
If a competitor wants to make a copy of a product you're selling their going to do it regardless of whether or not you produced open source or closed source drivers. However if you open source your drivers you allow reap the benefits of allowing the end user to optimize the end product. For example look at the reverse engineering being done on the now-defunct 3dfx Voodoo 4/5 cards. Without going into to much technical detail, the developers working on the drivers are toying with features of the card that were never fully explored in 3dfx's officially released drivers. This features greatly enhance 3d performance on the cards. Also, since the reverse-engineered drivers are open-source someone who desires to port the drivers to another visual platform (i.e. Berlin perhaps) would have much less trouble in doing so. Especially considering 3dfx's untimely demise and nVidia's general lack of interest in supporting the old 3dfx users.
Since we are talking about personal preference it would probably be a good idea for you to scatter a few IMHO's here and there in your response.;)
Your little story is very cute but it is not very concrete as a reason against the GPL. All that your example demonstrates is that companies should be more forthcoming with their specifications.
It's all well and good that QNX was able to afford the cost of paying their engineers to manufacture drivers for their OS. If these drivers are as 'rocking' as you make it seem wouldn't it benefit more people if they were made available to the general public?
It seems to me that the closed-source method you propose results in large amounts of duplicated effort. This is neither cost effective nor efficient at producing the most optimal drivers.
To paraphrase your last sentence:
One must NOT confuse open-source and the free software philosophy as they are two different things.
Slashdot Mirror
It was not my intent to criticize QSSL for not using the GPL, but rather eliminate a misconception that the original author had regarding the GPL.
He implied that it was the General Public License itself that results in ALSA being less optimized than its closed-source counterparts. Admitedly, companies may not want to help create GPL drivers for fear of divulging secrets to the competition. That does not mean that the GPL is inherently to blame for less efficient drivers. This is just an indication of an overly-competitive marketplace with less than honest practice of business.
However, let's not forget closed-source drivers:
If "reverse engineering hardware specs is a breeze with the right equipment (ie. your competitors have it)" [see other reply] then what does it matter if your competitors have the driver source code? Assuming that there is a legal disclaimer associated with the product barring people from reverse engineering the hardware for commercial gain then the end result is the same. Their illegal reverse engineering of your product is just made ever so slightly easier than it already was.
If a competitor wants to make a copy of a product you're selling their going to do it regardless of whether or not you produced open source or closed source drivers. However if you open source your drivers you allow reap the benefits of allowing the end user to optimize the end product. For example look at the reverse engineering being done on the now-defunct 3dfx Voodoo 4/5 cards. Without going into to much technical detail, the developers working on the drivers are toying with features of the card that were never fully explored in 3dfx's officially released drivers. This features greatly enhance 3d performance on the cards. Also, since the reverse-engineered drivers are open-source someone who desires to port the drivers to another visual platform (i.e. Berlin perhaps) would have much less trouble in doing so. Especially considering 3dfx's untimely demise and nVidia's general lack of interest in supporting the old 3dfx users.
Since we are talking about personal preference it would probably be a good idea for you to scatter a few IMHO's here and there in your response. ;)
Your little story is very cute but it is not very concrete as a reason against the GPL. All that your example demonstrates is that companies should be more forthcoming with their specifications.
It's all well and good that QNX was able to afford the cost of paying their engineers to manufacture drivers for their OS. If these drivers are as 'rocking' as you make it seem wouldn't it benefit more people if they were made available to the general public?
It seems to me that the closed-source method you propose results in large amounts of duplicated effort. This is neither cost effective nor efficient at producing the most optimal drivers.
To paraphrase your last sentence:
One must NOT confuse open-source and the free software philosophy as they are two different things.