On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:36:26 +0200 Wilko Bulte <wkb_at_freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 02:35:41PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:28:29AM -0500, David Leimbach wrote: > > > I have the GPLd source to the nforce drivers for Linux > > > to support the nVidia nforce and nforce2 drivers in the kernel. > > > > > > To port these to FreeBSD would be an interesting task [if it > > > hasn't already been done] and I have been looking for an excuse to > > > get down and dirty with FBSD. > > > [Yes... talk is cheap... just do it... Nike-a-go-go etc etc... :)] > > > > > > What is the policy on drivers that are clearly going to have to be > > > GPLd by the viral clause since I am referencing a GPL driver to do > > > the porting work myself? Are these allowed in the kernel? > > Yes, see for example the GPL_ed floating point emulator. > > However the idea is that all GPL infected stuff be isolated, allowing > a fully working kernel without GPL stuff in there. > > > > <semi-joke> > > > Can we have a "tainted" flag for kernels running GPL drivers :). > > > </semi-joke> > > > > I'm interested in this too -- I have a working FreeBSD prototype of > > the i8k Linux driver, fan control for Dell laptops. I was planning > > to ask the author if he was willing to relicense it to BSD, but > > failing that > > A BSD license is ***strongly*** prefered. > > > the answer to this question might be interesting. > I and no doubt many others will insist on keeping GPLed drivers out of the tree. I have no objections for this drivers to be confined in ports though.Received on Tue May 27 2003 - 03:45:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:09 UTC