Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3] Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:06:13 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 15:38 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > Politics: > It's true that sometimes some people don't like the code or what it > does. But when this is the underlying cause of NAK-ing a driver I think > it's very important that this is clearly stated, instead of inventing > various random reasons that can easily be argued against. How should the > driver writer otherwise get it right? Man-years might be spent fixing up > drivers that will never get upstream anyway. > > I think it would help a lot of there was a documented set of driver > features that were required and sufficient for a DRM driver to go > upstream. It could look something like > > * Kernel coding style obeyed. Passing checkpatch.
* fully functional GPL user-space driver.
How can you argue that something as tailor made as a DRM interface can be used without it being a derived work?
FWIW my full vote goes against allowing such thing to happen, and I think quite a lot of kernel people would agree with me.
I would hope enough of of them would so that we can stop this from happening.
Negative karma points to you for trying to chip away at the spirit of Linux. -- 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/
| |