Editing Talk:Drivers justification
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::<lcuk> this is what documentation is all about | ::<lcuk> this is what documentation is all about | ||
::<jott> lcuk: drivers/video/omap/dispc.c atleast reads "#define OMAP2_SRAM_START 0x40200000" | ::<jott> lcuk: drivers/video/omap/dispc.c atleast reads "#define OMAP2_SRAM_START 0x40200000" | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
Line 79: | Line 72: | ||
- | ::: | + | ::http://mxr.maemo.org/diablo/source/kernel-source-diablo-2.6.21/kernel-source/drivers/video/omap/dispc.c |
+ | |||
== justification point == | == justification point == | ||
Line 108: | Line 102: | ||
So we have a driver used strictly internally and strictly for R&D purposes. This driver was done for the 2.4 kernel. When moved to 2.6 we have problems with GPL license violations, which we could ''solve'' in three ways: | So we have a driver used strictly internally and strictly for R&D purposes. This driver was done for the 2.4 kernel. When moved to 2.6 we have problems with GPL license violations, which we could ''solve'' in three ways: | ||
- | # | + | # Keep the driver as it is and leave the driver installation to you. This way we do not distribute GPL violating drivers, but this way you are using GPL violating drivers. |
- | # | + | # We hack the GPL checking from the kernel we will ship, so no GPL violation (but loads of upset kernel developers?) |
# We spend a lot of time and money rewriting the driver to be shippable without any kernel changes or violations (not very feasible on our side, I tell you) | # We spend a lot of time and money rewriting the driver to be shippable without any kernel changes or violations (not very feasible on our side, I tell you) | ||
Line 117: | Line 111: | ||
:IANAL, but I don't think (1) is viable: the driver is still a derived work, even if you don't bundle it yourself. (2) would cause so much negative press as to be unbelievable and would cause serious harm to the platform (and so the community). One possible option would be to contract an external community member (or members) under NDA to receive the driver and its source with the understanding that it is not for distribution. For all intents and purposes this is therefore still Nokia internal use. That developer can then do option (3). --[[User:jaffa|Jaffa]] 11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | :IANAL, but I don't think (1) is viable: the driver is still a derived work, even if you don't bundle it yourself. (2) would cause so much negative press as to be unbelievable and would cause serious harm to the platform (and so the community). One possible option would be to contract an external community member (or members) under NDA to receive the driver and its source with the understanding that it is not for distribution. For all intents and purposes this is therefore still Nokia internal use. That developer can then do option (3). --[[User:jaffa|Jaffa]] 11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Good to see that we are in the same page. The first two options are listed as mathematical possibilities but in real terms are No-Go. About the third option, in principle I see a problem combining "community member" and "NDA" since normally NDAs are signed with individuals in companies or other types or organizations (e.g. universities, research centers...). In any case the organization that helps external developers getting contracts signed is Forum Nokia. Kate Alhola is the Maemo contact there and in fact she is interested and working in finding a way to get this puzzle sorted out in some way. I have sent her a link to this page. You know her as well. looks like a way to see if it's possible to move forward. In any case I keep the feedback channel open in my side and I will report here anything new.--[[User:qgil|qgil]] 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | ::Good to see that we are in the same page. The first two options are listed as mathematical possibilities but in real terms are No-Go. About the third option, in principle I see a problem combining "community member" and "NDA" since normally NDAs are signed with individuals in companies or other types or organizations (e.g. universities, research centers...). In any case the organization that helps external developers getting contracts signed is Forum Nokia. Kate Alhola is the Maemo contact there and in fact she is interested and working in finding a way to get this puzzle sorted out in some way. I have sent her a link to this page. You know her as well. looks like a way to see if it's possible to move forward. In any case I keep the feedback channel open in my side and I will report here anything new.--[[User:qgil|qgil]] 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- |
Learn more about Contributing to the wiki.