Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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 >
As stated before this was a suggestion to clarify the field for driver writers. If the documented set of driver features required is fully open-source so be it. Just let people know. /Thomas > 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
