lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectLegal Issues with UDI ( was Re: [Fwd: Uniform Driver Interface (UDI)] )
While the previous comments below deal with the technical issues of
performance of UDI drivers, this comment deals mainly with the
Licensing Issues.

1. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with non-GNU GPL'ed
drivers?

2. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with proprietary
drivers,
for which you do not have the source code, and there is not even a
glimmer of hope that you would ever have the source code?

3. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with proprietary
drivers,
for which you do have the source code, but the source code is not
released under the GNU GPL?

4. Assuming that all Linux UDI drivers are GNU GPL'ed, can a proprietary
OS
(SCO, Solaris, HP-UX) use those same drivers? (This could lead us
down the
same path that Apache has followed were the currency of trade is
source code.
i.e. Yes we will work with you, but we want some of your source code
hacks.)

5. Would driver authors be willing to release their drivers under
multiple
different licenses?

6. If the UDI drivers are only available in a binary format, would this
not
violate a primary premise that freeware/OpenSource implies.
Premise: Only trust software you have the source code for.
Implied Premise: Never trust software you do not have the source code
for.

I am sure there are other questions concerning the Licensing Issues, but
these are the ones which come to mind first.


David Hollister wrote:
>
> Erik Andersen wrote:
> >
> > For Linux, it would sure be nice to auto-magically be able to use any device
> > without the usual pain. I am a bit concerned though. One of the major areas
> > where Linux shines is speed. If every device is to be run in:
> > "an encapsulating environment for drivers with well-defined
> > interfaces which isolate drivers from OS policies and from
> > platform and I/O bus dependencies"
> > then isn't this equivalent to saying that performace will suck?
> >
> > -Erik
>
> My company is involved in a similar architecture design and we actually
> have drivers running in this environment under HP-UX, and to a lesser
> extent, Solaris and AIX. I did a lot of the work on HP-UX (and am
> working on a Linux implementation right now). A LOT of testing in the
> HP-UX world proved that, at least for our design, there was no noticable
> performance difference between our native drivers and our "generic
> driver environment" drivers. UDI probably goes several steps further in
> the abstraction process than we do, but my feeling is to say that any
> difference there may be should be minimal. That is to say, the benefits
> (from the development standpoint) should outweigh the consequences.
>
> My personal opinion, though, is that I'd rather write a native driver
> any day. I see this as killing most of the fun involved in writing
> drivers. Can't fight progress though.
>
> --
> David Hollister

--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."

When the toast is burnt
and all the milk has turned
and Captain Crunch is waving farewell
when the Big One finds you
may this song remind you that they
don't serve breakfast in hell
==Breakfast==Newsboys

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans