From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262041AbVAJB2O (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:28:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262042AbVAJB2O (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:28:14 -0500 Received: from mproxy.gmail.com ([216.239.56.248]:37075 "EHLO mproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262041AbVAJB2H (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:28:07 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=bieR3IW0nxerZzMjuSrVImB6jMECo0tOyVVw37b5ElzzomZO1Wb8KZYIH0CEVknWFufEUBkPUF9PF/FJ9Y+OqQ/+7iVM3zA9iPbS+UulVyu1E7+kAqiIHg4CKN64jy2WzOvE6g0FyOEG+tQ/MsSOdfOCOAqQ+iXAoDqVOJ17UAI= Message-ID: <21d7e99705010917281c6634b8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:28:06 +1100 From: Dave Airlie Reply-To: Dave Airlie To: John Richard Moser Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Cc: Alan Cox , znmeb@cesmail.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <41E1CCB7.4030302@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <41DD9968.7070004@comcast.net> <1105045853.17176.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1105115671.12371.38.camel@DreamGate> <41DEC5F1.9070205@comcast.net> <1105237910.11255.92.camel@DreamGate> <41E0A032.5050106@comcast.net> <1105278618.12054.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <41E1CCB7.4030302@comcast.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > And what 3rd party hardware vendor wants to waste their resources by > repeting smaller versions of the one-time cost of driver writing over > and over to accomodate linux, when they can't even accomodate all > versions due to special patches some people have? So far there's been a > rediculous but visible trend of hardware vendors to hold their source > closed. I do wonder would open source kernel drivers to work with a closed source user space application be accepted into the mainline kernel... say for example Nvidia or VMware GPL'ed their lower layer kernel interfaces but kept their userspace (X driver and VMware) closed source which is perfectly acceptable from a license point of view.. would Linus/Andrew accept the nvidia lowlevel into the kernel, if not then it would be idealogical not licensing issues which would make the argument for having a stable module interface better :-) It would be interesting to find out .. and you are right there is little point in arguing this at this stage, closed source drivers are evil. Dave.