From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 158 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5ebf873 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ + + + +The Free Software Movement and UDI - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

The Free Software Movement and UDI

+ +

+A project called UDI (Uniform Driver Interface) aims to define a +single interface between operating system kernels and device drivers. +What should the free software movement make of this idea?

+

+If we imagine a number of operating systems and hardware developers, +all cooperating on an equal footing, UDI (if technically feasible) +would be a very good idea. It would permit us to develop just one +driver for any given hardware device, and then all share it. It would +enable a higher level of cooperation.

+

+When we apply the idea to the actual world, which contains both free +software developers seeking cooperation, and proprietary software +developers seeking domination, the consequences are very different. +No way of using UDI can benefit the free software movement. If it +does anything, it will divide and weaken us.

+

+If Linux supported UDI, and if we started designing new drivers to +communicate with Linux through UDI, what would the consequences be?

+ + + +

+Given these consequences, it is no surprise that Intel, a supporter of +UDI, has started to “look to the Linux community for help with +UDI.” How does a rich and self-seeking company approach a +cooperating community? By asking for a handout, of course. They have +nothing to lose by asking, and we might be caught off guard and say +yes.

+

+Cooperation with UDI is not out of the question. We should not label +UDI, Intel, or anyone, as a Great Satan. But before we participate in +any proposed deal, we must judge it carefully, to make sure it is +advantageous for the free software community, not just for proprietary +system developers. On this particular issue, that means requiring +that cooperation take us a step further along a path that leads to the +ultimate goal for free kernels and drivers: supporting all +important hardware with free drivers.

+

+One way to make a deal a good one could be by modifying the UDI +project itself. Eric Raymond has proposed that UDI compliance could +require that the driver be free software. That would be ideal, but +other alternatives could also work. Just requiring source for the +driver to be published, and not a trade secret, could do the +job—because even if that driver is not free, it would at least +tell us what we need to know to write a free driver.

+

+Intel could also do something outside of UDI to help the free software +community solve this problem. For example, there may be some sort of +certification that hardware developers seek, that Intel plays a role +in granting. If so, Intel could agree to make certification more +difficult if the hardware specs are secret. That might not be a +complete solution to the problem, but it could help quite a bit.

+

+One difficulty with any deal with Intel about UDI is that we would do +our part for Intel at the beginning, but Intel's payback would extend +over a long time. In effect, we would be extending credit to Intel. +But would Intel continue to repay its loan? Probably yes, if we get +it in writing and there are no loopholes; otherwise, we can't count on +it. Corporations are notoriously untrustworthy; the people we are +dealing with may have integrity, but they could be overruled from +above, or even replaced at any time with different people. Even a CEO +who owns most of the stock can be replaced through a buy-out. When +making a deal with a corporation, always get a binding commitment in +writing.

+

+It does not seem likely that Intel would offer a deal that gives us +what we need. In fact, UDI seems designed to make it easier to keep +specifications secret.

+

+Still, there is no harm in keeping the door unlocked, as long as we +are careful about who we let in.

+ + + + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3