From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265853AbTLIOJp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:09:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265856AbTLIOJp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:09:45 -0500 Received: from [206.74.63.254] ([206.74.63.254]:26944 "EHLO mail.int.sealevel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265853AbTLIOJn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:09:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: Dale Whitchurch To: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <200312091322.33506.andrew@walrond.org> References: <000701c3be1c$8a3cfbc0$0301a8c0@comcast.net> <200312091322.33506.andrew@walrond.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1070979148.16262.63.camel@oktoberfest> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:12:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2003 14:12:53.0109 (UTC) FILETIME=[88FE8250:01C3BE5E] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A question for this thread: Is the GPL in effect for the kernel so that anybody can enhance the current drivers and add support for any other device? If two companies develop competing products and those products (albeit a few slight differences) perform the same operations using almost the same hardware, do we want one company to use the others driver? In another sense, does the kernel evolve to reflect this? If the overall driver acts the same minus a few hardware differences, does the kernel source change by abstracting the similarities and allow both companies to write the device specific code? Does it instead say that both cards must have independent source code? Or do we only allow the first driver into the source tree? There are no evil overtones in this email, nor any disgruntled developer feelings. I am just reading at this thread and asking myself, "Is the overall goal for everyone to get along?" Dale Whitchurch