linux-kernel - Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH 1/7] Adding empia base driver

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 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:	Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:08:09 +0200
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Devin Heitmueller" <devin.heitmueller@...il.com>
Cc:	"Hans Verkuil" <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
	"Markus Rechberger" <mrechberger@...il.com>,
	v4l <video4linux-list@...hat.com>, linux-dvb@...uxtv.org,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	em28xx <em28xx@...ntral.de>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	mchehab@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH 1/7] Adding empia base driver

Hi Devin,

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Devin Heitmueller
<devin.heitmueller@...il.com> wrote:
> A number of people have suggested that nobody was willing to
> incorporate Markus's changes incrementally to improve the in-kernel
> driver.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  I appealed to
> Markus on multiple occasions trying to find some compromise where his
> changes could be merged into the mainline em28xx driver.  He outright
> refused.  It was his contention that his driver was/is better than the
> in-kernel driver in every possible way, and that the existing code has
> no redeeming value.  In fact, I was accused of taking his GPL'd code
> without his consent and incorporating it into the linux-dvb codebase.
> It's this "all or nothing" attitude that has prevented his work thus
> far from being incorporated, not the unwillingness of people like
> myself to do the work to merge his changes in a sane matter.

I'm not sure I understand how he can refuse such a thing. If the code
is released under the GPLv2 and the author refuses to play by the well
known rules of the kernel community, then I don't see any problem with
taking the code and improving the current driver (as long as the
copyright is properly attributed, of course).

I think it's already pretty well established that we don't just take
in shiny new drivers and trust a new maintainer to do the right thing
because that has gotten us in such a mess so many times before. Being
part of the community is not so much the code you write but the way
you interact with other kernel developers.

So, if I were you, I'd just do it.

                        Pekka
--
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/