On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:50:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:34:26PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Please let's keep the politics out of this. I know who wrote that >> patch, I know the agenda behind it and the discussion accompanying it. >> Conversely, I'm sure you know fully well that I have no way of putting >> that question to any relevant person at AVM, and even if I had, it would >> achieve exactly nothing at all. I am not interested in such fruitless >> political discussions. I have a simple question, to which I would like >> a simple answer. > > There's no "politics" here at all. Oh, please ... You aren't seriously trying to tell me there's a *technical* reason for changing EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, are you? Again, I am not interested in discussing that decision. It's been taken, and I accept it. But let's call a spade a spade. > And why wouldn't you go ask AVM, they are the ones producing the driver > for this hardware, how could it be our responsibility to get their code > to work properly, when we have absolutely no way to do so? That's not true. Reverting commit 782e70c6fc2290a0395850e8e02583b8b62264d8 would be enough. But again, I am not asking for that. My question isn't about getting AVM's closed source driver to work with kernel 2.6.25+. I just want to know whether there is an open source alternative, nothing more. > This is between you and AVM. I really suggest contacting the company. > I have talked to them in the past and they seem willing to help out > where they can. Obviously even you weren't able to convince them to convert their driver for this device to something compatible with post 2.6.24 kernels. How then could I possibly hope to achieve anything? I have no contractual relationship with AVM. I don't know anybody in that company. I don't work for anyone they would recognize. All I can do is contact the regular consumer support people who don't even know what I am talking about and keep asking me to boot Windows, where the device obviously works, so all is well, no? After all, it does say "System requirements: Windows" on the box. But all this is just the fruitless discussion I wanted to avoid. With your kind permission I'll stop this here and concentrate instead on the subthread which actually deals with my question. Thanks, Tilman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
