From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Sun Mar  7 18:22:06 1999
Received: from entry.jcu.cz (IDENT:perex@entry.jcu.cz [160.217.1.111])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA29798;
	Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:19:01 +0100
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:19:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
cc: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: ALSA Soundcard Vendor Information
In-Reply-To: <199903071625.JAA04527@wijiji.santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990307175010.23630B-100000@entry.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     ALSA does not stop anybody from releasing binary-only drivers. But
>     ALSA does not support nor encourage these drivers either. The stance
>     that ALSA takes on binary-only sound card drivers is similar to
>     Linus's stance on binary-only drivers in the kernel. 
> 
> Linus' stand is not very strong, and that is one of the causes of the
> present bad situation with OSS, which is part of what makes ALSA
> necessary.

I think that Linus is enough strong.

1) He doesn't assure that there will be the binary compatibility between
   kernel releases.
2) He won't work on some generic API for the binary drivers for binary
   drivers makers.

> Could you possibly take a somewhat stronger stand than Linus does?

My problem is what should I tell to end users which doesn't know
anything about GPL, free software, but they want use their hardware with
Linux? I hate NDAs, but it seems that we must live with them. I will
silently ignore all binary drivers and I won't support binary drivers,
but I don't disallow binary drivers.

>     <P>There is nothing to stop any company from developing a binary only
>     driver that works with ALSA. But binary-only drivers will not be
>     distributed as part of ALSA.
> 
> People can develop binary-only Linux drivers to support sound cards,
> but how could such drivers "work with ALSA"?  Unless I am confused
> about something, these binary drivers would work with Linux, but not
> with ALSA--right?  So wouldn't they be "alternatives to ALSA"
> rather than "work with ALSA"?
> 
> Is there some technical point that I am misunderstanding?

Yes, I'll allow to use ALSA's midlevel modules in same way as Linus allows
to use kernel code from binary modules. Thus a binary driver maker should
only create own toplevel and lowlevel modules for his soundcard.

>      While we will accept source for firmware, we do not
>     require it. Firmware in binary form is just fine.
> 
> Even if you will *accept* binary-only firmware, I hope you will not
> say "binary form is just fine".  Please say that source is better.

This is good point. Chris David, could you add this notice to the text
(that we preffer source than binary firmware code)?

> Also, what about permission to modify and translate the firmware?  I
> hope you will insist on those freedoms, even if the firmware is only binary.
> (Someone else could then disassemble it, try to understand it, and add
> comments to it.)

I'm not sure that we must insist on this freedom. It will be nice, but
we don't require modifications of the firmware for the sound driver
development when the firmware (a code for some other processor) doesn't
break the security of an operating system.

							Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
Academic Computer Centre, University of South Bohemia
Branisovska 31, C. Budejovice, CZ-370 05 Czech Republic




