Re: DRM drivers with closed source user-space: WAS [Patch 0/3]Resubmit VIA Chrome9 DRM via_chrome9 for upstream

[Alan Cox]

> 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.

> 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.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/