On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > If the common agreement of the linux community is to *NOT* allow these > > drivers in, so be it, then be honest and go ahead and tell the driver > > writers. Don't make them respin their development trying to fix minor > > flaws when their driver won't get in anyway! > > The existing policy based on what has been rejected is: > > - If you have something which only works with some non-free tightly > integrated software then we don't accept it > > Examples - GMX500, Intel wireless regulatory daemon.
I think "tightly integrated" could do with some clarification here. qcserial was accepted despite not being functional without a closed userspace component - an open one's since been rewritten to allow it to work. Do we define "tightly integrated" as "likely to cross the GPL line" (potentially the case with Poulsbo, not the case with qcserial), or is it a pragmatic issue? What about specialised hardware drivers that only have closed applications? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
