On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:38 PM, HoP <jpetrous@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi folks. > > I need to warn you that my mail is a bit little longer then I would like > to be.But I'm not able to ask my question without some > background information. > > On June 19th, I was sending the driver to the Linux-media > mailing list. Original announcement is there: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg34240.html > > One would say that the code describes very well what it does = adds > virtual DVB device. To be more clear on it I have even done some > small picture: > > http://www.nessiedvb.org/wiki/doku.php?id=vtuner_bigpicture > > I was hoping to get any feedback regarding code implementation. > It was my first code for the kernel and I felt very well that some > part can be done better or even simpler. > > What really surprised me badly was that when I read all 54 responses > I have counted only two real technical answers!!! All rest were about > POLITICAL issues - code was NACKed w/o any technical discussion. > Because of fear of possible abusing of driver. > > I didn't know that there existed very big movement against such > code in dvb-core subsystem before. > > I have one big problem with it. I can even imagine that some "bad guys" > could abuse virtual driver to use it for distribution close-source drivers > in the binary blobs. But is it that - worrying about bad boys abusing - > the sufficient reason for such aggressive NACK which I did? Then would > be better to remove loadable module API fully from kernel. Is it the right way? > > Please confirm me that worrying about abusive act is enough to NACK > particular driver. Then I may be definitely understand I'm doing something > wrong and will stay (with such enemy driver) out of tree. > > I can't understand that because I see very similar drivers in kernel for ages > (nbd, or even more similar is usbip) and seems they don't hamper to anybody. > > I would like to note that I don't want to start any flame-war, so very short > answer would be enough for me. > > Regards > > Honza > > PS: Please be so kind and CC the answer/comment to me, I'm > only on linux-media ML, not on linux-kernel ML. Thanks. > > BTW, if accidentally, somebody find it interesting and would like to > help me doing code review, there is the code hosted now: > http://code.google.com/p/vtuner/source/browse?repo=linux-driver Honza, I, for one, would love to see your virtual DVB device driver hosted in a repository for the purposes of experimentation and additional development. I can think of many, many good uses for such a virtual device driver. Unfortunately, however, all the device vendors also have uses for it. It a guarunteed fact that if a driver like that got merged into the kernel, any software company that previously sponsored open-source kernel development would opt instead for closed source userspace drivers that depend on a virtual DVB device. Please don't let that discourage you -- I think you should continue your work on this virtual DVB device driver, and I'd love to play with it myself, and possibly even contribute to it. ...but I will never support the merging of this into the kernel. I do not nack the existence of the driver -- I love the idea, and I encourage more development. I only nack it's merging into any open-source linux kernel. Please accept my answer with the greatest intentions for furthering the development of the open-source community. My opinion is only for the best intentions of continued contributions from companies such as Hauppauge and any others that have contributed thus far to v4l/dvb. Please, keep up the work. I repeat -- I would love to play with your work. Best regards, Mike Krufky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
