Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero > relevance here. > > And there's value in making life harder for such modules with > questionable legality. As an example, consider people who experienced > crashes of "the Linux kernel" caused by some binary-only driver. > Not that uncommon e.g. with some graphics drivers. > This harms the reputation of Linux as being stable.
You are mixing up several distinct categories here: "out of tree" != "non-GPL" != "proprietary" != "of questionable legality" != "binary-only" != "causing kernel crashes". > The solution is not to support proprietary drivers, the solution is to > get open source replacements. So how do you propose to "get" those replacements? And what shall users do during the time this "getting" may take? > If it's low quality code doing something useful - well, how many hundred > people are on Greg's list only waiting for some driver they could write? No idea. Obviously not enough to actually solve the problem. What solution do you propose? >> [D]o you think the world would >> be a better place if all the existing out-of-tree modules >> just ceased to exist, without any replacement? > > With your "without any replacement" you needlessly excluded the > reasonable solution: > > The solution is that someone other than the author either takes the > existing external code or rewrites it from scratch, submits it for > inclusion into the kernel, and maintains it there. My "without any replacement" is just a description of reality. All current external code I am aware of continues to exist only because there is no in-kernel replacement. Again: how do you propose to bring that solution of yours to pass, how long do you think it will take, and what do you propose current users of out-of-tree modules do in the meantime? Without reasonable answers to these questions, your proposed solution itself hardly qualifies as reasonable. > Let me repeat that Greg has said he has hundreds of volunteers for such > tasks. Even with hundreds of volunteers, your proposed solution of just rewriting *all* external code in a way fit for inclusion into the kernel is an unachievable goal. Just look at the list on http://linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers and try to answer why each of them is still out of tree. Hint: In most cases it's neither out of malice nor stupidity on the authors' part. Of course in-tree code is always better than out-of-tree code. But I maintain there will always be out-of-tree code (modules, drivers, whatever) that fills a real need not (though hopefully, just not yet) satisfied by any in-tree code. All I'm asking for is that you take a pragmatic stance with regard to that: not going to any great lengths to support it, but acknowledging its existence and legitimacy - and not inciting to deliberately break it. Thanks, Tilman -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
