linux-kernel - Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3] Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:51:14 +1000
From:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Hellström <thomas@...pmail.org>,
	DRI <dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3] 
	Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream

2009/7/21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> 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?

For a start the userspace is MIT licensed generally, also with architectures
such as gallium3D you can't easily say a driver is derived from the kernel
interface. Actually generally the argument is the drm interface would
be derived work
of the userspace. Kernel hackers aren't lawyers so I cringe whenever one of them
says derived work, without understanding that 80-90% of the code is probably in
the userspace 3D driver, so proving its derived from a 1000 line
kernel interface
is where it gets messy, and hence why a number of lawyers for Intel have already
come down on thinking it was acceptable and from what I can see are still
shipping kernels with an open drm but a closed userspace.

So I'm not saying I agree with having these I'm just saying its not
your 1000 line
regulatory daemon case.

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