On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:10:29PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: [...] > > They'll keep shipping closed stuff, just like they are now. Are you > > going to reverse engineer the userspace drivers, so people who care > > about open and free software platforms can use these drivers? (or have > > you already signed NDAs saying you can't). Why should we maintain a > > bunch of kernel code, when they are hiding away all the really useful > > stuff that people could improve. > > Maintaining this exact code is not _your_ job, [...] Correct, it's not solely his job, but it's also every kernel developers' job. When I change kernel API I have to grep through all the kernel drivers, sometimes understand how they work, and then make the change to the whole kernel source tree. And I would not want to maintain this code, as these drivers are wasting my time without returning anything back. It was said many times. Actually, so many times that it started to become boring to repeat, and the Kernel Driver Statement was written: "We, the undersigned Linux kernel developers, consider any closed-source Linux kernel module or driver to be harmful and undesirable." http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/publications/kernel-driver-statement While the doc mostly says "kernel code", I truly believe that there's actually no huge difference between "closed-source kernel module" and "open source dummy kernel module + userspace blob". Both are closed source solutions, and generally useless for the open source. And, what is worse, the last one is harmful for me personally. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
