From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 27 12:09:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548D237B401 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-86.apple.com [17.250.248.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF35243FBF for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from leimy2k@mac.com) Received: from webmail08.mac.com (webmail08-en1 [10.13.11.150]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h4RJ9a0x004870 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail08 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by webmail08.mac.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4RJ9aFu003122; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7848474.1054062576098.JavaMail.leimy2k@mac.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:09:36 -0500 From: David Leimbach To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 19:09:37 -0000 On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:40PM, David O'Brien wrote: >On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:43:15AM -0500, David Leimbach wrote: >> >However the idea is that all GPL infected stuff be isolated, allowing a >> >fully working kernel without GPL stuff in there. >> >> Sounds like a "kernel module" is the way to go then. Perhaps it could >> exist in the ports tree instead of the mainline kernel sources :). I >> know I'd be happy with that... the problem is hosting the driver since >> I am sure "patching" it won't be enough to map the linux innards to >> freebsd's. > >Depending on the functionality the driver provides, and the kernel API's >it uses; having it as a port may be impractical. The driver probably >needs to change with the kernel and that is hard to handle as a port. I agree it could get sticky. But a patch or series of patches per kernel delta [as needed] may not be so bad. There has to be a fairly simple way to map the two together :). And I really only would "have to" support releases. I'd prefer to burn that bridge once I've got a working driver though.... Don't want to jump ahead too much for fear of the old bike shed. Dave