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

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

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 | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org