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

[Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>]

2009/7/21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 15:38 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>> Politics:
>> It's true that sometimes some people don't like the code or what it
>> does. But when this is the underlying cause of NAK-ing a driver I think
>> it's very important that this is clearly stated, instead of inventing
>> various random reasons that can easily be argued against. How should the
>> driver writer otherwise get it right? Man-years might be spent fixing up
>> drivers that will never get upstream anyway.
>>
>> I think it would help a lot of there was a documented set of driver
>> features that were required and sufficient for a DRM driver to go
>> upstream. It could look something like
>>
>>     * Kernel coding style obeyed. Passing checkpatch.
>
>      * fully functional GPL user-space driver.
>
> How can you argue that something as tailor made as a DRM interface can
> be used without it being a derived work?

For a start the userspace is MIT licensed generally, also with architectures
such as gallium3D you can't easily say a driver is derived from the kernel
interface. Actually generally the argument is the drm interface would
be derived work
of the userspace. Kernel hackers aren't lawyers so I cringe whenever one of them
says derived work, without understanding that 80-90% of the code is probably in
the userspace 3D driver, so proving its derived from a 1000 line
kernel interface
is where it gets messy, and hence why a number of lawyers for Intel have already
come down on thinking it was acceptable and from what I can see are still
shipping kernels with an open drm but a closed userspace.

So I'm not saying I agree with having these I'm just saying its not
your 1000 line
regulatory daemon case.

Dave.