Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:03:46 +0200 | From | Ihar 'Philips' Filipau <> | Subject | Re: [somewhat OT] binary modules agaaaain |
| |
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hello all > > I came across an idea, how Linux could allow binary modules, still having > reasonable control over them. > > I am not advocating for binary modules, nor I am trying to make their life > harder, this is just an idea how it could be done. > > I'll try to make it short, details may be discussed later, if any interest > arises. > > A binary module is "considered good" if >
I belive that you forgot to make "The Point."
And "discussion" (good vs. bad isn't discussion, but flames) went in wrong direction.
Be constructive. For example: Let's aks h/w producers making at least glue layer open source (bsd or something), so people eventually might help to maintain this glue layer. How it can help? - producer with time may move bigger parts of driver into open source domains. How it can gets screwed? - producer might just start liking when someone is doing his work for him. Some license a-la GPL to not let glue layer to slip into binary only domain back must be in place.
This could be a good starting point for h/w producers and linux comunity as a whole.
Saying Good/Bad is just B.S. - helps no-one. Building bridges between comunity and producers - might improve and deepen relationships. And that's what I hope for.
P.S. nVidia driver might be an example: IIRC nVidia engineers were saying that they have four 2/3rd party code parts inside driver, which they are not able to open source/GPL. But open source glue layer to connect this "tainted" 4 parts with Linux kernel might help everyone: nVidia, LK and even those four companies. At least I hope for this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |