Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 00:33 UTC, submitted by liquidat
Thread beginning with comment 257165
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-20
From a technical standpoint, this is great. It's great to have the option to design components of your driver to run in userspace or in kernelspace, depending on the application.
However, I'm worried that this will make it easier to write binary-only userspace driver components and that companies will see it as an opportunity to claim linux compatibility without releasing open drivers/specs.
I could be wrong about this (I guess the code would still be considered linked to GPL code, but then maybe you could create some sort of bridge between your linked userspace open source component and your nonfree userspace components... more easily).
I'm not saying that technological progress in free software that might encourage nonfree software development should be avoided, but it'll be interesting to see if this has an impact on nonfree software development in the linux world.