| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LinkSys and binary modulesLinkSys and binary modulesPosted Oct 23, 2003 11:55 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: LinkSys and binary modules by rknop Parent article: LinkSys and binary modules Or go down the microkernel approach :-) If the module runs as part of the kernel in kernel-mode, it's a derived work and must be open source. If it runs as a user-land driver (like all drivers in a microkernel), then it is not a derived work, but it suffers all the penalties that usermode code (and microkernels in particular) suffer from. This also has the nice side effect that binary-only code can no longer taint and/or crash the kernel. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with hardware driver source being released under a "you can only run this driver if you have this hardware" licence, but I suspect others would! Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
LinkSys and binary modules Posted Oct 23, 2003 21:49 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with hardware driver source being released under a "you can only run this driver if you have this hardware" licence, but I suspect others would"Correcty if i'm wrong, but couldnt the LANANA function as a support and guarantee mechanism that that really happens( no need for licences),... and considering a split driver model being it kernel/userland(like USB) or kernel/kernel, or not, the fact of any driver being "source" or "binary only" dosent really make any diference. I mean the coupling of specific hardware device with specific sofware driver, is always a given. If there is to much generalization inside Linux kernel, is because of design and lack of proper specs.
|
|
||||||||||||