On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 04:21:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:Yep, legal agenda. As I suspected, licensing religious fundamentalism. :-) People who care can change the defaults. People who are real religious nuts won't even let the firmware live in the same source tarball. But I hope you agree we clearly don't have consensus to take *that* step (rip out all firmware and make a whole bunch of drivers non-functional and forcing users to go on a treasure-hunt to find some new tarball they have to install on their existing system). So given that we're not ready to take that step, why not just leave the default as "yes" for now? The staged approach means that if you really want to do this ASAP, then start assembling the firmware tarball *now*, and for a while (read: at least 9-18 months) we can distribute firmware both in the kernel source tarball as well as separately in the licensing-religion-firmware tarball. See if you can get distros willing to ship it by default in most user's systems, and give people plenty of time to understand that we are trying to decouple firmware from the kernel sources. If we need to institute better versioning regimes between the drivers and firmware release levels, that will also give people a chance to get that all right. Then 6-9 months later, we can turn the default to 'no', and then maybe another 6-9 months after that, we can talk about removing the firmware modules. But it seems to me that you are skipping a few steps by arguing that the default should be changed here-and-now. We've been shipping firmware in the kernel for over a ***decade***; in fact, probably over 15 years. For people who are legal freaks/geeks, look up the legal terms "Estoppel" and "Laches". That provides a fairly large amount of protection right there. For people who aren't legal geeks, we've been doing this for well over a decade; another year or two really isn't a big deal. It certainly doesn't justify breaking users by default just to try to hurry up this process. Not 15 minutes after David posted his note, we're now up to 11 reports; and this is only from an -mm patch series. Can you imagine the number of bug reports if this were allowed to ship in a mainline kernel.org release? One good thing is that we can definitely show that there people that are downloading, compiling and trying to build the -mm kernel. :-) - Ted --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Trent Piepho | Re: [PATCH] fakephp: Allocate PCI resources before adding the device |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
git: | |
