On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 15:38 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> Politics:
> It's true that sometimes some people don't like the code or what it
> does. But when this is the underlying cause of NAK-ing a driver I think
> it's very important that this is clearly stated, instead of inventing
> various random reasons that can easily be argued against. How should the
> driver writer otherwise get it right? Man-years might be spent fixing up
> drivers that will never get upstream anyway.
>
> I think it would help a lot of there was a documented set of driver
> features that were required and sufficient for a DRM driver to go
> upstream. It could look something like
>
> * Kernel coding style obeyed. Passing checkpatch.
* fully functional GPL user-space driver.
How can you argue that something as tailor made as a DRM interface can
be used without it being a derived work?
FWIW my full vote goes against allowing such thing to happen, and I
think quite a lot of kernel people would agree with me.
I would hope enough of of them would so that we can stop this from
happening.
Negative karma points to you for trying to chip away at the spirit of
Linux.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
