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]

Message-ID: <4A648834.8080203@shipmail.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:07:32 +0200
From:	Thomas Hellström <thomas@...pmail.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	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

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/