Even for bigger manufacturers who do not wish to invest in Linux developers for the sole purpose of getting a few drivers written, the offer will be more than welcome. A third positive is that the people who will be developing the drivers are competent at their job and would know the kernel better than any other who is outside the community.

The Linux market is not that big right now but even then the words "supported on Linux" on the packaging will be a selling point. More than the actual selling of a device which has this notation, the manufacturer will then be regarded differently within a community which, at times, reacts very strongly and extremely emotionally to those who are seen to be trying to prevent Linux users from utilising the hardware they manufacture.

What about licensing issues? The GPLv2 (General Public License version 2) under which Linux is released does not prohibit the presence of binary-only drivers in the kernel source. The owner of GPL code can combine it with a proprietary binary blob if he or she so wishes.

When it comes to distribution, some questions do arise. An individual who wants to distribute something which is derived from GPL code, must do so under the terms of the GPL. However, Linux creator Linux Torvalds himself has pointed out that if a module can be loaded into the kernel, that does not necessarily make it a derived work. However, there are some developers who feel that this isn't the case and the debate will continue, I guess.

For a long time, developers have been going to manufacturers and requesting specifications for various types of hardware in order that they can get the devices going under Linux and other free or open source operating systems. The BSD folk have been doing the same - OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt has been vocal in his criticism of many manufacturers who are reluctant to provide specs for this purpose.

But, with this offer from Kroah-Hartman, it looks like a manufacturer now will have no reason not to provide Linux drivers - barring the fact that the manufacturer in question simply does not want to do so (and yes, there are standouts). Undoubtedly, there will be some who will raise this hurdle or that - the question of intellectual property can always be a convenient bogeyman - to avoid taking up the offer. But then the bluff of this manufacturer would be blown - for a long time manufacturers have been able to hide under the excuse of "no money to pay developers to support Linux", or "it's too small a market to invest the funds for creating drivers." With one stroke, Kroah-Hartman has put the ball back in the manufacturers' court.

{moscomment}

Tags See All Tags

Gadgets  Hardware  Intellectual property rights  Linux  Open Source  Sam Varghese