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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090720233340.GA5522@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:33:40 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:28:35AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.

? It was merged directly into drivers/usb/serial.

> > 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.

I was more wondering about whether we had issues with code that wasn't a 
GPL concern but still depended on a closed component.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/