From: Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>
To: "MEHTA,HIREN (A-SanJose,ex1)" <hiren_mehta@agilent.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: releasing driver to kernel in source+binary format
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:14:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B85B88C.4610C2D@coppice.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FEEBE78C8360D411ACFD00D0B7477971880B3E@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com>
"MEHTA,HIREN (A-SanJose,ex1)" wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> We want to release a linux scsi hba-driver for our fibre-channel
> HBAs and make it part of the kernel source tree. Because of IP
> related issues, we can only release one part of the sources with
> GPL. We want to release the other part in the binary format (.o)
> as a library which needs to be linked with the first part.
> If somebody can advise me on how to go about this, I would
> appreciate it.
>
> I went through the "SubmittingDrivers" file
> which does not talk about this kind of special cases.
I for one would not buy such a thing, for the most practical of reasons.
Open source advocates are often seem as idealists. In general they are
the most pragmatic of people.
In the past year 90% of my serious problems have come from three pieces
of software - 2 text to speech packages, and Dialogic's driver from
Linux. These are the only three "binary only" things I have used, and I
am powerless to fix any of the issues causing me grief. My experience is
not unique - its commonplace.
If there is an open source alternative I think most serious Linux users
will choose that over any closed option. The closed option seldom has
enough advantage to overcome the severe risk inherent in an option that
means trusting someone who does not have your best interests at heart.
If you make your driver completely open source, we would still have to
trust your hardware. Experience says that isn't such a big problem. Few
pieces of computer hardware, which actually reach the market, have
proven so bad that the problems cannot be worked around (perhaps with a
little performance loss) in software. Closed hardware doesn't scare
seasoned users like closed software.
That said.... If your closed code actually consists of something
dwownloaded to the card, you may still be able to supply a GPL kernel
bit, and a binary only downloaded bit. If you want an integral part of
your host driver code to be binary only, you can't do that.
Regards,
Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-24 2:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-23 17:59 releasing driver to kernel in source+binary format MEHTA,HIREN (A-SanJose,ex1)
2001-08-23 18:14 ` Alan Cox
2001-08-23 18:16 ` Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
2001-08-23 18:26 ` Disconnect
2001-08-24 2:14 ` Steve Underwood [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-08-23 18:43 MEHTA,HIREN (A-SanJose,ex1)
2001-08-23 19:04 ` Alan Cox
2001-08-23 20:14 ` Jes Sorensen
2001-08-23 19:40 ` Matti Aarnio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3B85B88C.4610C2D@coppice.org \
--to=steveu@coppice.org \
--cc=hiren_mehta@agilent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox