[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090721002835.5a85a2aa@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:28:35 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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
> I think "tightly integrated" could do with some clarification here.
> qcserial was accepted despite not being functional without a closed
> userspace component - an open one's since been rewritten to allow it to
It got as far as staging with a good deal of complaint. I am not sure it
would have gotten further unfixed (with my serial/tty maintainers hat
on ;)). That however was about firmware - so a lot less tightly coupled.
> work. Do we define "tightly integrated" as "likely to cross the GPL
> line" (potentially the case with Poulsbo, not the case with qcserial),
> or is it a pragmatic issue? What about specialised hardware drivers that
> only have closed applications?
Ultimately - ask a lawyer, ultimately this is a question about works and
copyright boundaries. If the hardware has only some specific proprietary
app then it sounds to me like it's not a general kernel interface so
probably isn't a good interface anyway, let alone what the code may do.
Alan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists