Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:28:35 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3] Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream |
| |
> I think "tightly integrated" could do with some clarification here. > qcserial was accepted despite not being functional without a closed > userspace component - an open one's since been rewritten to allow it to
It got as far as staging with a good deal of complaint. I am not sure it would have gotten further unfixed (with my serial/tty maintainers hat on ;)). That however was about firmware - so a lot less tightly coupled.
> work. Do we define "tightly integrated" as "likely to cross the GPL > line" (potentially the case with Poulsbo, not the case with qcserial), > or is it a pragmatic issue? What about specialised hardware drivers that > only have closed applications?
Ultimately - ask a lawyer, ultimately this is a question about works and copyright boundaries. If the hardware has only some specific proprietary app then it sounds to me like it's not a general kernel interface so probably isn't a good interface anyway, let alone what the code may do.
Alan
| |