Re: [RFC] vtunerc - virtual DVB device driver

From: HoP <jpetrous@gmail.com>
To: Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@kernellabs.com>
Cc: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc - virtual DVB device driver
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:17:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTin14LnwP+_K1m-RsEXza4M4CjqnEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinn0uN3VwGfqCbYbxFoVf6aNo1VSA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Devin.

2011/6/20 Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@kernellabs.com>:
> 2011/6/20 Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>:
>>        Hello,
>>
>> Le dimanche 19 juin 2011 03:10:15 HoP, vous avez écrit :
>>> get inspired by (unfortunately close-source) solution on stb
>>> Dreambox 800 I have made my own implementation
>>> of virtual DVB device, based on the same device API.
>>
>> Some might argue that CUSE can already do this. Then again, CUSE would not be
>> able to reuse the kernel DVB core infrastructure: everything would need to be
>> reinvented in userspace.
>
> Generally speaking, this is the key reason that "virtual dvb" drivers
> have been rejected in the past for upstream inclusion - it makes it

Can you tell me when such disscussion was done? I did a big attempt
to check if my work is not reinventing wheels, but I found only some
very generic frontend template by Emard <emard@softhome.net>.

> easier for evil tuner manufacturers to leverage all the hard work done
> by the LinuxTV developers while providing a closed-source solution.

May be I missunderstood something, but I can't see how frontend
virtualization/sharing can help to leverage others work.

> It was an explicit goal to *not* allow third parties to reuse the
> Linux DVB core unless they were providing in-kernel drivers which
> conform to the GPL.

I'm again not sure if you try to argument against vtunerc code
or nope.

Thanks

/Honza