On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:28:35AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > 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 > > It got as far as staging with a good deal of complaint. I am not sure it > would have gotten further unfixed (with my serial/tty maintainers hat > on ;)). That however was about firmware - so a lot less tightly coupled.
? It was merged directly into drivers/usb/serial. > > 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? > > Ultimately - ask a lawyer, ultimately this is a question about works and > copyright boundaries. If the hardware has only some specific proprietary > app then it sounds to me like it's not a general kernel interface so > probably isn't a good interface anyway, let alone what the code may do. I was more wondering about whether we had issues with code that wasn't a GPL concern but still depended on a closed component. -- 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
