On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > > actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too > > > (because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost > > > enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use > > > *both* ESS1688's in my laptop (when docked), which should be *trivial* > > > if the module took arguments like every other module in the > ... > > > laptop... and didn't realize until now just how bad it was... > > On May 31, Jason Gunthorpe wrote > > Yeah, I found it equally objectionable when I was reading it over, > > considering a few other things I'm -VERY- surprised it is in the kernel at > > all. > > I'm puzzled. > > I just looked over the sound driver source code and didn't see anything > but GPL licenses in there. The source in the kernel is GPL, however my understanding is that the Commercial version is not GPL (I'm not totally sure). The GPL version is generated from the commercial version by removing things. So, if I go and fiddle it and then send them my patches they would really like to put them into the commercial version so they don't have to do any work ;> Of course if I GPL my patches then they cannot do this. If my patches are very complex then they also may not want to spend the time to integrate it. All in all it really looks like the code is GPL but the development is closed. I could be wrong, that was my impression from their web pages when I looked a few months back. Jason -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
