From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750994AbWLXL6V (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:58:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751005AbWLXL6V (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:58:21 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-06.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.5.136]:41467 "EHLO ms-smtp-06.tampabay.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbWLXL6U (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:58:20 -0500 Message-ID: <458E6B46.2060201@cfl.rr.com> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 From: Mark Hounschell User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Courtier-Dutton CC: Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Martin Bligh , "Michael K. Edwards" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] References: <20061214003246.GA12162@suse.de> <22299.1166057009@lwn.net> <20061214005532.GA12790@suse.de> <45811AA6.1070508@superbug.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <45811AA6.1070508@superbug.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing > these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to > play in the "Grey Area", then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers > are already difficult and expensive for the companies because they have > to keep updating them as we change the kernel versions. If they do open > source drivers, we update them for them as we change the kernel > versions, so it works out cheaper for the companies involved. > Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would never be acceptable for inclusion in any "functional form". We open sourced them purely out of respect for the way we know the community feels about it. It would cost more for us to make them acceptable for inclusion than it does for us to just maintain them ourselves. I suspect that is true for most vendor created drivers open source or not. So kernel developers making the required changes as the kernel changes is NO real incentive for any vendor to open source their drivers. Sorry. If it were knowingly less difficult to actually get your drivers included, that would be an incentive and then you original point would hold as an additional incentive. My humble $.02 worth Regards Mark