RE: [ANNOUNCE] Linux Hardened Device Drivers Project

[Andre Hedrick]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Rhoads, Rob wrote:

> > Obvious this is a way for the telecom folks to get something 
> > for free that
> > really should be paid for by funding the project with CASH.  
> > Or funding (a) startup(s) related to generating such support.
> >
> > Regardless, it takes (fill in the blank) to boldly ask people 
> > to add APIs
> > for an industry who is only interested in using and not contributing.
> > Prove that all the stuff which is going to be plugged into these
> > security-hole^Wbug-generators^Wfeatures will be scheduled for 
> > open source.
> 
> This project is open to anyone who wants to participate and is
> being paid for by Intel and a host of other companies. The 

Explain how it is paid and to whom?

> idea is to enable Linux to play in the Carrier space with all
> the work given away under the GPL.

Re-Phase, "Carrier space" needs Linux to succeed.

> > Or this another attempt to try and take over the license and shove BSD
> > down the piles?
> 
> The project is open and released under the terms of the GPL. 

Okay, is there not a cause for loading "closed source modules" via the new
API's and management tools?

> > PS: I see a lot of "wants", are there any "gives" ?
> 
> What paying professional developers to work on an Open Source project 
> and giving their work away under the terms of the GPL isn't enough?

I am sorry, I do not understand the context.

I give away lots of work which is paid for by various companies who desire
broarder support for their product.  If I recall correctly, Intel is a
promoter of Serial ATA, yet it took another vendor whose interest in
working with the open source community funded the "free release" of a
generic IOPS driver layer change, and the crossover support for various
archs.  Just so you know, they are totally aware the release of the
project would also enable their competion.  They are betting their product
is superior and put the money down to prove it!

So why not have the "Carrier" people post a list of tasks to be completed
and the monetary value and let the opensource community play in the
bidding process to earn the contract?

You specify it to be totally open source and IP generated shall be demeed
public and not open for patents.

Will the carrier folks step up to the BAR and do the right thing by the
many individuals in the community or shield themselves in wordy
specifications and compliance terms?

Please point out why this is wrong?

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group