[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070220203023.GB9712@lug-owl.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:30:23 +0100
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>
To: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
Cc: v j <vj.linux@...il.com>, davids@...master.com,
trent.waddington@...il.com,
"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no> wrote:
> If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it
> in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
> open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
> of the code and the cleverness is kept safe in userspace.
>
> Note that keeping drivers small this way is the recommended
> way of working anyway. It isn't merely a way to keep your
> code away from the GPL - you always want a small kernel.
Keeping the legal stuff out of sight for a second, this'll solve the
"problem" for the embedded developer, but surely not for the Linux
community. Would you ever expect that eg. the thin GPL layer used by
ATI/NVidia would be merged iff the rest would run in userland?
It's just a workaround for the
linking-the-object-file-into-the-kernel-image problem, but after all,
it doesn't lead to a working driver being freely available.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@...-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: If it doesn't work, force it.
the second : If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists