lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
    On 2/17/07, Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Which shows how that case is different from writing Linux drivers. For
    > example, looking at the example the OP was himself proposing a few
    > alternative approaches to work around the limitation they were hitting:
    > could just switch to static major/minors instead of dynamics ones, they
    > could skip sysfs, or they could even reimplement something like sysfs
    > themselves, or whatever other interface they deem useful for the purpose of
    > plopping in their own binary blob on top of it, sort of like what nVidia
    > and ATi do for their stuff.

    Or they could run:
    find . -type f -exec perl -i.bak -pe 's/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/g'
    and be done with it. Or even just MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in their
    module -- that's not "lying about the module license", it's "doing the
    minimum necessary in order to interoperate efficiently with the
    kernel". Atari v. Nintendo is still good law, but _only_ to the
    extent that it does not conflict with Lexmark, which now has the seal
    of Supreme Court approval. And (IMHO, IANAL) if writing
    MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") is obviously the only remotely efficient way to
    achieve the goal of interoperation with the kernels that people
    already have on their systems, through the documented, tested,
    currently recommended APIs (like sysfs), then you have a Sega / Altai
    / Lexmark fact pattern, not an Atari v. Nintendo fact pattern.

    So what's the penalty for MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on code that is not
    actually offered under the GPL? Being shunned by the kernel
    community. Maintaining a fork. Getting to keep both halves when it
    breaks. Friends don't let friends write non-GPL drivers. But friends
    also don't let friends go off into delusional spasms of denial.
    nVidia and ATI do what they do so that their code has more than a
    snowball's chance in hell of running on people's desktops, not out of
    fear that the Big Bad LKML Wolf will come blow down their houses.
    Their hardware is doubtless so fiddly and buggy and crash-prone that
    four out of five attempts to compile a driver for it reorder the
    instructions enough to slag the GPU, under Windows or Linux. _That's_
    why they ship binary drivers. Capisce?

    Cheers,
    - Michael
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-18 00:59    [W:2.605 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site