Greg KH wrote:
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
Pretty much every license under the sun is getting violated,
and people are getting away with it. The GPL is not special
in this regard.
> So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
> first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to
> other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the
> other direction.
I can probably speak for Ubuntu in saying we wont
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> >Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> >> debug a (large) kernel module?
> >
> >You
On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
>Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
>> debug a (large) kernel module?
>
>You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
> binary
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
> first.
You don't think I already get enough hatemail from binary-module users ? :)
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 13:42 schrieb Alan:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> > debug a (large) kernel module?
>
> You think its any easier to debug because the code
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
accessing I/O space.
> > uio also
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, I'm going to suggest that you people talk to your COMPANY
> LAWYERS on this, and I'm personally not going to merge that particular
> code unless you can convince the people you work for to merge it first.
That's quoting
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 12:14 schrieb Alan:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
> "Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> > > our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
> >
> > If filesystems can
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:21:20 +
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they fail to do that under the 'honour system' then I'm not averse to
> 'enforcing' it by technical measures. (For some value of 'enforcement'
> which is easy for them to patch out if their lawyers are _really_
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
"Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> > our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
>
> If filesystems can be in user space, why can't drivers be in user space? On
> what
> 2008? I bet a lot of people would read the above to say that their
> system will just drop dead of a New Year's hangover, and they'll freak.
> I wouldn't want to be the one getting all the email at that point...
I wouldn't worry. Everyone will have patched it back out again by then,
or made
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:10:15AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > An updated version is below.
>
> If you're adding this, you should probably schedule EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> for removal at the same time, as this essentially renders that irrelevant.
>
>
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say
> that its authors have to conform to our worldview.
I wouldn't argue that _anyone_ else should be exposed to my worldview; I
think the Geneva Convention has
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 16:55 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Oh, and for those who have asked me how we would enforce this after this
> date if this decision is made, I'd like to go on record that I will be
> glad to take whatever legal means necessary to stop people from
> violating this.
I see no
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The point of banning binary drivers would be to leverage hardware
> companies into either releasing open source drivers, or the specs for
> someone else to write them.
IMHO, it's up to the users to decide if they want to keep buying hardware
which
> Someone also mentioned that we could just put a nice poem into the
> kernel module image in order to be able to enforce our copyright license
> in any court of law.
>
> Full bellies of fish
> Penguins sleep under the moon
> Dream of wings that fly
>
> thanks,
Whoever says
Someone also mentioned that we could just put a nice poem into the
kernel module image in order to be able to enforce our copyright license
in any court of law.
Full bellies of fish
Penguins sleep under the moon
Dream of wings that fly
thanks,
Whoever says that has no
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The point of banning binary drivers would be to leverage hardware
companies into either releasing open source drivers, or the specs for
someone else to write them.
IMHO, it's up to the users to decide if they want to keep buying hardware
which
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 16:55 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Oh, and for those who have asked me how we would enforce this after this
date if this decision is made, I'd like to go on record that I will be
glad to take whatever legal means necessary to stop people from
violating this.
I see no
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say
that its authors have to conform to our worldview.
I wouldn't argue that _anyone_ else should be exposed to my worldview; I
think the Geneva Convention has
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:10:15AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
An updated version is below.
If you're adding this, you should probably schedule EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
for removal at the same time, as this essentially renders that irrelevant.
That being
2008? I bet a lot of people would read the above to say that their
system will just drop dead of a New Year's hangover, and they'll freak.
I wouldn't want to be the one getting all the email at that point...
I wouldn't worry. Everyone will have patched it back out again by then,
or made their
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
Hua Zhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
If filesystems can be in user space, why can't drivers be in user space? On
what *technical*
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:21:20 +
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they fail to do that under the 'honour system' then I'm not averse to
'enforcing' it by technical measures. (For some value of 'enforcement'
which is easy for them to patch out if their lawyers are _really_ sure
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 12:14 schrieb Alan:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
Hua Zhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
If filesystems can be in user space,
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That said, I'm going to suggest that you people talk to your COMPANY
LAWYERS on this, and I'm personally not going to merge that particular
code unless you can convince the people you work for to merge it first.
That's quoting material
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
accessing I/O space.
uio also doesn't
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 13:42 schrieb Alan:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
first.
You don't think I already get enough hatemail from binary-module users ? :)
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
binary drivers
On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
accessing
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any
So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to
other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the
other direction.
I can probably speak for Ubuntu in saying we wont include
Greg KH wrote:
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
Pretty much every license under the sun is getting violated,
and people are getting away with it. The GPL is not special
in this regard.
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 21:39 -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
binary drivers become
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 10:36:13AM +, Alan wrote:
2008? I bet a lot of people would read the above to say that their
system will just drop dead of a New Year's hangover, and they'll freak.
I wouldn't want to be the one getting all the email at that point...
I wouldn't worry. Everyone
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:07:04AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
will, I fear, end
Ben Collins wrote:
Here's the list of proprietary drivers that are in Ubuntu's restricted
modules package:
madwifi (closed hal implementation, being replaced in openhal)
fritz
ati
nvidia
ltmodem (does that even still work?)
ipw3945d (not a kernel
But I would ask that they honour the licence on the code I release, and
perhaps more importantly on the code I import from other GPL sources.
It's not a question of honoring the license; it's a matter of what
is the reach of the license, as it relates to derivitive works. It's
a complicated
Pretty much every license under the sun is getting violated,
and people are getting away with it. The GPL is not special
in this regard.
That may begin to change in time. There are a lot of people getting very
angry at the political level about the way large companies in particular
flout
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:03:10AM -0500, James Morris wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The point of banning binary drivers would be to leverage hardware
companies into either releasing open source drivers, or the specs for
someone else to write them.
IMHO, it's up to
Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Because I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your
political agendas, please.
ACK, I agree completely. I think its a silly, political, non-technical
decision being pushed here.
For the record, I also disagree with the sneaky backdoor way people
Alan wrote:
Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
kernel ASAP for example.
ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we can.
Jeff
[1] http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:10:57PM +, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
More items will be added to that list soon.
E.g. Linux Binary only, Creative X-Fi sound card drivers for Q2 2007.
http://opensource.creative.com/
Wow. That wins 'most ironic hostname' award for 2006.
Thankfully onboard
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:07:04AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Thing is, if kernel.org kernels get patched to disallow binary modules,
whats to stop Ubuntu (or
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
The fact is, the reason I don't think we should force the issue is very
simple: copyright law is simply _better_off_ when you honor the admittedly
gray issue of derived work. It's gray. It's not black-and-white. But
being
The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
and people who've no clue about the issue. It's not the way to solve such
problems. The world
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:11:33AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If a kernel developer or a competitor sends a ceasedesist letter to
such a distribution, the situation changes from a complicated derived
work discussion to a
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 15:10 +, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Ben Collins wrote:
Here's the list of proprietary drivers that are in Ubuntu's restricted
modules package:
madwifi (closed hal implementation, being replaced in openhal)
fritz
ati
nvidia
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
and people who've no clue about the
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
But I would ask that they honour the licence on the code I release, and
perhaps more importantly on the code I import from other GPL sources.
This is a total non-argument, and it doesn't get any betetr by being
mindlessly repeated over and over
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:54:24PM +0100, Hans-J??rgen Koch wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 13:42 schrieb Alan:
uio also doesn't handle hotplug, pci and other small matters.
uio is supposed to be a very thin layer. Hotplug and PCI are already
handled by other subsystems.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
For the record, I also disagree with the sneaky backdoor way people want to
add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to key subsystems that drivers will need.
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if done
properly (and I think we use it
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
done properly (and I think we use it fairly well).
I think we _can_ do things where we give clear hints to people that
we think this is such an internal Linux
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
and people who've no clue about the
The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
binary drivers become pervasive. I don't want to see Linux destroyed
like
On Dec 14 2006 08:46, Ben Collins wrote:
I have to agree with your your whole statement. The gradual changes to
lock down kernel modules to a particular license(s) tends to mirror the
slow lock down of content (music/movies) that people complain about so
loudly. It's basically becoming DRM for
On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
accessing I/O space.
A NULL fault won't oops the
You know what I think hurts us more than anything? You know what
probably keeps companies from writing drivers or releasing specs? It's
because they know some non-paid kernel hackers out there will eventually
reverse engineer it and write the drivers for them. Free development,
and they didn't
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
done properly (and I think we use it fairly well).
I think we _can_ do things where we give
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and
disruptive (though we could support
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly
as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a skeleton driver)
and our proprietary
non derived code
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:21 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 08:46, Ben Collins wrote:
I have to agree with your your whole statement. The gradual changes to
lock down kernel modules to a particular license(s) tends to mirror the
slow lock down of content (music/movies) that people
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly
as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a skeleton driver)
and our
One of the things that I find so interesting about how rabid people
get about enforcing GPL-only modules is how they start acting more and
more like the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft every day
There is a saying
That which you fight you become
It's a warning that is well worth heeding
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and
Think of uio as just a class of driver, like input or v4l. It's still
up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the
hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all.
Understood. That leads me to ask another question of the folks who deal
with a lot of these
On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate
exactly as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED.
No. That's really a purely technical thing.
You can still do whatever you want, but people who support the resulting
mess know that they shouldn't.
Linus
-
To
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
convey what it means, either.
Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED.
No. That's really a purely technical thing.
I'm not certain I understand what you mean here. Nasty messages using
the word taint is purely subjective.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
Well, I'm not sure the _INTERNAL name is all that much better than the
_GPL one.
In many ways, the _GPL one describes the _effects_ better, and also points
out the reason _why_ something is marked
Rik van Riel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Maybe we should just educate users and teach them to
avoid crazy unsupportable configurations and simply buy
the hardware that has open drivers available?
Educating the users may help, but it's hard to do the
education once they've already bought the
On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
convey what it means, either.
Calling
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.If the code
is FREE then let it be. You can put whatever
you want in the code -- I will remove any such constructs, just like I
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
Doesn't that sound even more like the music
Wedgwood
Cc: Eric Sandeen; Christoph Hellwig; Linus Torvalds; Jeff
Garzik; 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]
On 12/14/06, Chris
And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
buy some hardware labelled runs under Linux, it could turn out that's
with a Windows driver running under ndiswrapper...
That is something that I think is
On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote:
You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like
bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers.
There's no binary-only driver for it (ndiswrapper doesn't count). If the
hardware vendor doesn't
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 20:29 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote:
You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like
bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers.
There's no binary-only driver for it
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:26:26PM +, Alan wrote:
Think of uio as just a class of driver, like input or v4l. It's still
up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the
hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all.
Understood. That leads me to ask
On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan wrote:
Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
kernel ASAP for example.
ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we can.
On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:21, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan wrote:
Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
kernel ASAP for example.
It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
marking it
On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:39, Dave Airlie wrote:
It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
kernel only means we've
Well said, and I agree with ALL of your statements contained in this
post. About damn time this was addressed.
Jeff
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates the license of the kernel
Hi.
Good arguments have already been put against it, so I'll just keep it
short and sweet (FWIW)
Nacked-by: Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Regards,
Nigel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
> I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
If filesystems can be in user space, why can't drivers be in user space? On
what *technical* ground?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
compatible modules has been
Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> An updated version is below.
If you're adding this, you should probably schedule EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
for removal at the same time, as this essentially renders that irrelevant.
That being said...
First, this is adding the measure at module load time. Any
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
> kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
> of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
> compatible modules has been set.
Btw, I
Hi,
I think that...
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
From: Greg Kroah-Hartmna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... (most probably) there...
Subject: Notify non-GPL module loading will be going away in January 2008
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 02:30:26AM +0100, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that...
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
> >From: Greg Kroah-Hartmna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ... (most probably) there...
>
> >Subject: Notify non-GPL module loading will be going away in January 2008
>
fish for birds alone?
no, teach suits how to leave more
fish to go around
Cheers,
- Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the
Greg's patch:
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: This module will not be able "
> + "to be loaded after January 1, 2008 due to its "
> + "license.\n", mod->name);
If you're going to go ahead with this, shouldn't the message
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Full bellies of fish
> Penguins sleep under the moon
> Dream of wings that fly
Snif. That touched me deep inside.
Linus
PS. Or maybe it was the curry I ate yesterday.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
201 - 300 of 315 matches
Mail list logo
