From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:09:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:08:52 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:26385 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:08:33 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: PCI NVRAM Memory Card Date: 8 Aug 2001 14:08:36 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Message-ID: <9ks9ok$jl6$1@cesium.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010622101907.03ac21b0@192.168.0.5> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Disclaimer: Not speaking for Transmeta in any way, shape, or form. Copyright: Copyright 2001 H. Peter Anvin - All Rights Reserved Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Followup to: <5.1.0.14.0.20010622101907.03ac21b0@192.168.0.5> By author: Mike Jadon In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > My company has released a PCI NVRAM memory card but we haven't developed a > Linux driver for it yet. We want the driver to be open to developers to > build upon. Is there a specific path we should follow with this being our > goal? In researching Linux driver development I have come across "GPL" or > "LGPL". Where do you recommend we go to find out more about this > development process? > > Thanks and my apologies for using a technical forum for this question, but > wanted to go to the right source. > Since you're willing to open the source, you are probably best off making the kernel portion of your driver GPL and submit it for integration into the main kernel tree. The drivers included in the main kernel tree tend to be the ones that work reliably over time, and are therefore most valuable to your customers. As someone else mentioned, user-space libraries should be LGPL. It should be pointed out that you, as the copyright holder, can "dual-license" the code if you want to use the same code for closed-source projects. If so, the mention of the dual license nature should be specified in the open code, to keep you from getting in a sticky situation when someone submits patches. The most formal such license is probably the MPL (Mozilla Public License); I do not know if MPL'd code would be considered "GPL compatible" and therefore eligible for inclusion in the main kernel. Another possible license used in a few places is the "New BSD" license (as opposed to the "Old BSD" license, with the so-called "advertising clause".) The BSD license allows *anyone* (including yourselves, of course, but also your competitors) to take the code and use it in a closed-source project. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt