Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3]Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 15:38 +0200, Thomas HellstrÃm 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
Linux.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/