On Friday 09 June 2006 15:13, Lee Revell wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:55 +0200, Alberto Botti wrote: > > Il giorno mer, 07/06/2006 alle 11.49 -0400, Lee Revell ha scritto: > > > On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 04:50 -0500, Jan Depner wrote: > > > > Why do you assume this? There are plenty of closed-source > > > > applications and drivers running on top of Linux. > > > > > > Closed source applications are perfectly OK. A closed source > > > ALSA driver violates the GPL. > > > > > >From the ALSA soundcard support page > > > > (http://www.alsa-project.org/call.php): > > > > "There is nothing to stop any company from developing a binary only > > driver that works with ALSA. But there are several issues and > > requirements we want to make clear to anybody attempting to do > > this." > > "Works with ALSA" is not exactly the same as a binary ALSA driver. > > "Binary-only drivers cannot be based on any ALSA source code. They > must be written from scratch. Binary-only drivers that contain ALSA > code are infringing on copyright laws." > > IOW, a binary only ALSA driver can implement the ALSA API, but it > cannot use the ALSA kernel middle layer at all. > > AFAICT this means that you could implement a ALSA compatibility > wrapper around a binary blob as long as that blob was not developed > for use on Linux. But developing a binary driver for use on Linux is > clearly a derived work of the kernel and thus illegal. > > Lee So a company that wanted to have a proprietary connection to linux could write an open source blob and a closed connection to the blob for their closed hardware/software? ie linux remains useable for companies. If not, I'm having a hard time seeing this as a positive situation. More like alsa shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not a programmer or audio pro; just a linux user who advocates open source and avenues of co-existence with businesses. Marv
