I'm not an expert kernel hacker, but from briefly scanning the patches, I see plenty of evidence that the firmware interfaces was reverse engineered, and no evidence that the code was based on proprietary code. The coding style is distinctively that of a long-time Linux kernel hacker. The pseudonym might cloud the issue, but the code certainly looks pure to me.
If the RIAA can go after an name-less IP address, can the kernel community hold a name-less email address accountable? We can archive the email wherein the contributor swore that the code was legit, and if we ever need to track him down, perhaps Google could help us resolve that GMail account?
Better yet, Lenovo wants to put Linux on Thinkpads these days, so why don't we take this issue to them? If we can get their permission to merge the code, I can't imagine we have anything to worry about. They might even offer to help maintain it!
The problem with these issues is that the kernel developers aren't lawyers. They shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. This is where the OSDL should be more involved in the process, so that the kernel developers can focus on the technical merit of the patches.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds