Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Making Sense of the OLPC Proprietary Software Row

Filed under
OLPC
Interviews

Theo de Raadt, the leader of the OpenBSD project and a vociferous crusader for hardware (especially networking) documentation, recently went public with his concerns about the One Laptop Per Child project's choice to use a wireless networking chip from Marvell, a company with an unusually poor record of supporting free software operating systems, in the 2B1 laptop computer that it is developing. Marvell is unwilling to freely supply hardware documentation so that programmers can create device drivers that properly interface with its wireless chips, and beyond that, Marvell also refuses to allow OpenBSD and other free software operating systems to freely distribute firmware binaries that are necessary to use Marvell wireless devices. So why, then, was it chosen for the OLPC project, which claims to "support open source?" If de Raadt's email was the first you heard of the conflict, you're probably confused as to what's going on. Below are explanatory interviews with various people who were or are involved with this situation: Theo de Raadt, Richard Stallman, Jim Gettys, and Jonathan Corbet.

Understanding the OLPC project's choices

I exchanged several emails with OLPC's vice president of software, Jim Gettys -- who was also one of the original designers of the X11 windowing system and the W3C editor in charge of the HTTP 1.1 specification, among other achievements in the computer technology industry -- in an effort to figure out what the uproar was about and what was actually going on. Excerpts follow:

Full Interview.

More in Tux Machines

Red Hat News

  • An Open Source Load Balancer for OpenShift
    A highly-available deployment of OpenShift needs at least two load balancers: One to load balance the control plane (the master API endpoints) and one for the data plane (the application routers). In most on-premise deployments, we use appliance-based load balancers (such as F5 or Netscaler).
  • Red Hat Beefs Up Platform as a Service Suite
    Red Hat has begun shipping Red Hat Fuse 7, the next major release of its distributed, cloud-native integration solution, and introduced a new fully hosted low-code integration platform as a service (iPaaS) offering, Fuse Online. With Fuse 7, the vendor says expanding its integration capabilities natively to Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, an enterprise Kubernetes platform. Fuse gives customers a unified solution for creating, extending and deploying containerized integration services across hybrid cloud environments.
  • Red Hat ‘Fuses’ Low Code Development and Data Integration
    Red Hat, a provider of open source solutions, has announced Red Hat Fuse 7, the next major release of its distributed, cloud-native integration solution, and introduced a new fully hosted low-code integration platform as a service offering, Fuse Online. With Fuse 7, Red Hat is expanding its integration capabilities natively to Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, a comprehensive enterprise Kubernetes platform. Fuse gives customers a unified solution for creating, extending and deploying containerized integration services across hybrid cloud environments.
  • The GPL cooperation commitment and Red Hat projects
    As of today, all new Red Hat-initiated open source projects that opt to use GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 will be expected to supplement the license with the cure commitment language of GPLv3. The cure language will live in a file in the project source tree and will function as an additional permission extended to users from the start. This is the latest development in an ongoing initiative within the open source community to promote predictability and stability in enforcement of GPL-family licenses. The “automatic termination” provision in GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x is often interpreted as terminating the license upon noncompliance without a grace period or other opportunity to correct the error in compliance. When the Free Software Foundation released GPLv2 in 1991, it held nearly all GPL-licensed copyrights, in part a consequence of the copyright assignment policy then in place for GNU project contributions. Long after the Linux kernel and many other non-GNU projects began to adopt the GPL and LGPL, the FSF was still the only copyright holder regularly engaged in license enforcement. Under those conditions, the automatic termination feature of GPLv2 section 4 may have seemed an appropriate means of encouraging license compliance.
  • Monness Believes Red Hat (NYSE: RHT) Still Has Room to Grow
  • Comparing Red Hat (RHT) & Autoweb (AUTO)
  • As Red Hat (RHT) Share Value Rose, Calamos Advisors Upped Its Position by $300,831; Chilton Capital Management Increases Stake in Equinix (EQIX)
  • Blair William & Co. IL Buys 23,279 Shares of Red Hat Inc (RHT)

Total War: WARHAMMER

Red Hat changes its open-source licensing rules

From outside programming circles, software licensing may not seem important. In open-source, though, licensing is all important. So, when leading Linux company Red Hat announces that -- from here on out -- all new Red Hat-initiated open-source projects that use the GNU General Public License(GPLv2) or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)v2.1 licenses will be expected to supplement the license with GPL version 3 (GPLv3)'s cure commitment language, it's a big deal. Read more

Android Leftovers