Vivek Vaghese Cherian wrote:

On the URL http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/licensing/document_view and under the section The purpose of the "restricted" component they say

The Ubuntu team recognizes that many users have vital hardware in their computer that requires drivers that are currently only available in binary format. We urge all hardware vendors to insist that their suppliers provide open source drivers for their components, but we recognise that in some cases binary drivers are the only way to make your hardware work. As a result, Ubuntu includes several of these drivers on the CD and in the repository, clearly separated from the rest of the software by being placed in the restricted component.

Binary drivers are a poor choice, if you have a choice. Without source code, Ubuntu cannot support this software, we only provide it for users who require it to be able to run the Free Software we provide in main. Also, we cannot make binary drivers available on other architectures (such as the Mac or IPAQ) if we don't have the ability to port the software source code ourselves. If your hardware is fully supported with open source drivers you can simply remove the restricted component, and we would encourage you to do so.

If closed source code drivers are a bad choice after all, why include them in the first place ?

The reason they provide that closed source drivers are required to be able to run "Free Software" they provide in the main is as lame an excuse as one can get.

So far the drivers and other things alleged to be "non-free" because they don't come with source code, please write the source code and send it to them as they request. Before the linux kernel was written, GNU Project tools certainly required a proprietary operating system for use, and was basically serving non-free software, though working towards a totally free system, and this task of making free device drivers looks like another mere extension or dimension of that. I am told that the single great difficulty in this regard is that the hardware manufacturers do not disclose technical details, such as registers, which makes the task of writing free device drivers difficult. If you have purchased any such hardware that did not disclose sufficient information about its registers that force you to waste time on "reverse engineering", please think of asking them to disclose details or even think of complaining to the appropriate authorities against this unethical practice in exercise of your rights as a consumer. Many consumers are lame in exercising their rights, and there is little point in blaming developers for not supporting them.

,----[ Vivek Vaghese Cherian wrote:] | I do agree that helping the community by writing driver code is indeed | the proactive way of handling this issue. | | 1) What are the existing laws in India that support the customer | against unethical pratices like not disclosing sufficient information | about hardware registers that force one to waste time on "reverse | engineering" ? | | Any URL containing the relevant laws would be of additional help. | | 2) What is the name of the appropriate authority to complain to | against the unethical practice of not disclosing sufficient | information about hardware registers that force one to waste time on | "reverse engineering" ? | | I feel this info would be vital not only for me but also to countless | other victims of hardware vendors not disclosing sufficient | information about their hardware. `----

The TRIPs Agreement made provisions for LAYOUT-DESIGNS (TOPOGRAPHIES) OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS and pursuant to it, we have the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 that deals with most of the issues involved here. _IF_ a card is registered under this law, then it should be fairly easy to get to the details (under S. 87 of the Act, the documents are open to public inspection). Also, note the following:

http://164.100.24.167/bul1/203/09122004.htm <quote> A copy each (in English and Hindi) of the following Notifications of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (Department of Information Technology), under section 96 of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000

(1) S.O. 277 (E) dated the 1st March, 2004, appointing Dr. K.S. Chari Scientist 'G', Department of Information Technology to hold additional charge of Registrar of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design.

(2) S.O. 278 (E) dated the 1st March, 2004, appointing the 1st day of May, 2004, as the date on which the provisions of section 3 and section 5 of the said Act shall come into force.

(3) S.O. 279 (E) dated the 1st March, 2004, establishing a Registry which shall be known as the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Registry (SICLDR) and specifying that the head office of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Registry so established shall be located in the Department of Information Technology, C.G.O Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi and the territorial limits within which such office of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Registry may exercise its functions shall be the whole of India. </quote>

But, mostly the vast majority of cards in the market may *not* registered as above. In such cases, it should be enough to write to the concerned manufacturer asking for details, or even ask for driver source code written in C. If polite requests do not yield results, then, the most efficacious remedy would be to insist upon your rights as a "consumer" before the Consumer Forum for relief, including claims for damages, if any. Of course, under the Consumer Protection Act, "Consumer" does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. But, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.

Most Acts are available online at http://indiacode.nic.in/sht.asp and a search for "Consumer Protection Act" returns a text file of the Act.

But, "FOSS", "Free and Open Source Software" terminology have been given currency by many people in the free software movement, and there is little point in objecting to use of that terminology.

We don't object when people use the term "FOSS". It is a legitimate way to refer to the free software and open source movements together, without taking a side between them.

>We don't object when people use the term "FOSS". It is a legitimate >way to refer to the free software and open source movements together, >without taking a side between them. > What would be neutral between "Linux" and GNU/Linux?

There's no way to be neutral on that issue.

These are two issues of terminology that we care about, but they are not similar issues.

Calling the GNU/Linux system "Linux" is misleading and unfair to us. We don't publicly work with people who do this.

Speaking of "open source" is not misleading or unfair. It simply means endorsing a view that disagrees deeply with ours. It isn't dishonest. We can work with people that hold these views, when we and they have common interests, provided the joint activity acknowledges the free software movement. (It could be called a FLOSS activity, since that acknowledges the free software movement.)