Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2008 01:19:13 +0100 | From | Enrico Weigelt <> | Subject | Re: Developing non-commercial drivers ? |
| |
* Fredrik Markström <fredrik.markstrom@avalonenterprise.com> wrote:
Hi,
> I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting > Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much > up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to > protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC.
Much of this already had been answered, but just to summarize:
* technically, binary drivers are a very bad idea - just look at the utterly broken nv crap. * IMHO, as soon as you include some kernel-internal headers, you've got an derived work, thus violating GPL (IANAL!) * binary-only drivers DON NOT protect IP, just delay the process of revealing a little bit. * try to find out whether the customer *really* has some valueble IP to protect or if it's just it's default oppionion * *if* the customer still wants an binary-only driver, you check whether the logic to hide can be moved to userland (let the userland part talk to the in-kernel driver via 9P) * let your customer know that binary-only drivers tend to heavily damage a company's reputation in the OSS world, *BAD* for marketing.
just my 0.02,-
cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/
| |