Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:07:32 +0200 | From | Thomas Hellström <> | Subject | Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3] Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream |
| |
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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 >
As stated before this was a suggestion to clarify the field for driver writers.
If the documented set of driver features required is fully open-source so be it. Just let people know.
/Thomas
> 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/
| |