Re: What is accepted into the standard kernel sources ?

Nathan Uno (nuno@coat.com)
Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:38:55 -0500 (EST)

On 4 Feb, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Wether or not this is true, those in power at Olicom think so. In the
>> case at hand, Olicom cannot give out a full-source driver.
>
> Then Olicom should be using strictly non GPL components only and not claiming
> their driver is anyway GPL'd . If its all their module and they want to give
> soure to half of it then they can. If its derived from GPL'd code they can't
> simple as that.
>
> Either way it'll never get into the kernel tree.

I think I missed some parts of this thread. Lemme see if I'm caught up
properly...

Olicom wants to have their driver included in the linux kernel SOURCE
tree, but they don't want to release the SOURCE code? Does this make
sense to anyone else?

I mean, I can understand a manufacturer wanting to release a driver in
binary-only form, but this sounds to me like Olicom's saying:

"We want Linus to make this a part of Linux but we don't Linus to look
at it or be able to change it or fix it..."

How can it be considered an integral part of Linux if it's not
INTEGRATED with Linux?

-- 


 Nathan 'Nato' Uno
nathan.uno@coat.com