[nycbug-talk] kernels

[mlists at bizintegrators.com]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:50:41AM -0400, 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.  In the 
> case of OpenBSD, you just don't have any interested third parties (that 
> I'm aware of).

As far as I know, GPL means you have to release the source, and since
there is no source for NVidia, they must not be GPL. I'm guessing, so
you might be right. They might be LGPL or whatever, to allow such
drivers to link against the kernel. I don't know how it works. I know
there is no source for NV module driver from NVidia.

I'm trying to say this. If NVidia writes a driver for OpenBSD, and
releases it in a binary-only form, they will not accept it.

-bruno