Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
quoted text
> Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero=
=20
quoted text
> relevance here.
>=20
> And there's value in making life harder for such modules with=20
> questionable legality. As an example, consider people who experienced=20
> 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"
!=3D "non-GPL" !=3D "proprietary" !=3D "of questionable legality" !=3D
"binary-only" !=3D "causing kernel crashes".

quoted text
> The solution is not to support proprietary drivers, the solution is to =

quoted text
> 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?

quoted text
> If it's low quality code doing something useful - well, how many hundre=
d=20
quoted text
> 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?

quoted text
>> [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?
>=20
> With your "without any replacement" you needlessly excluded the=20
> reasonable solution:
>=20
> The solution is that someone other than the author either takes the=20
> existing external code or rewrites it from scratch, submits it for=20
> 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.

quoted text
> Let me repeat that Greg has said he has hundreds of volunteers for such=
=20
quoted text
> 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

--=20
Tilman Schmidt                          E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Unge=C3=B6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=C3=BCckseite)