On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:06PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On 4/11/10 5:59 PM, "ext Greg KH" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:26:44PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > >>>> Why isn't this driver upstream? > >>> > >>> We tried. No success. > >>> > >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/23/191 > >> > >> You didn't try very hard it seems ? > >> > >> And is the spec in question still closed, is the hardware in fact > >> tightly tied to a non-free userspace ? > > > > I'll agree here with Alan, this is not something that can be accepted > > upstream, or probably even in the meego kernel, unless this issue is > > resolved. > > What makes you say it can't be included in MeeGo ?
What makes you think it could be accepted? You really want someone else to maintain something that was rejected upstream for X number of years in the future, just because your company can't get their act together? And you want them to take on the legal risk involved in such a thing as well? That's insane, would you expect to do this type of thing for someone else if you were in Intel's position? good luck, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel
