[nycbug-talk] kernels

[Pete Wright]

Bob Ippolito wrote:

>
> On Jun 3, 2004, at 10:11 AM, mlists at bizintegrators.com wrote:
>
>>>> I'm very gratefull for OpenBSD's integrity, meaning things like binary
>>>> only drivers will never be accepted.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how this is true.
>>>
>>> Sure binary only modules may not be possible, but binary only 
>>> patches are
>>> very much possible.  Additionally thanks to the liberal BSD license, 
>>> this
>>> becomes more so possible as opposed to the requirements of the GPL.
>>
>>
>> I think binary patches and binary kernel modules are very different.
>> Unless there is a source, or it complies with OpenBSD goals, they will
>> not accept anything kernel or userland related. Even with source, and a
>> bad license, they will not accept it. This is what I meant when I said
>> the above.
>> Binary patches patch already what is in the system. My comment only
>> related to things like binary-only NV drivers, for example.
>
>
> I don't get what you're trying to say here.  Linux won't accept kernel 
> modules and patches that aren't GPL either, but it just so happens 
> that there are third parties that provide a few binary only drivers.


actually the kernel will accept non-GPL'd lkm's, it will just "taint" 
the kernel and tell you about that at boot time.  the nvidia drivers are 
not GPL'd for example.

> In the case of OpenBSD, you just don't have any interested third 
> parties (that I'm aware of).
>
i don't think the OpenBSD folks want anything to do with non-open source 
drivers for various reasons.  in any event it's 6 or one 1/2 a dozen of 
the other...

-p



-- 
~~~oO00Oo~~~
Pete Wright
email:  pete at nomadlogic.org
mobile: 917.415.9866
web:    www.nomadlogic.org/~pete