Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Torvalds Merges DRM CoC Into 4.12 Development Repo

posted by CoolHand on Monday May 08 2017, @04:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the alzheimer's-coc dept.

The Mighty Buzzard writes:

Last week, Phoronix broke a story about the kernel DRM group over at FreeDesktop.org submitting a pull request for their code of conduct to be included in the kernel docs for the DRM subsystem. The next day it was merged.

I'm particularly interested in if they think this will keep Linus from saying hurtful things to them over lousy code. Discuss.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Torvalds Merges DRM CoC Into 4.12 Development Repo | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 80 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:06PM (#507087)

    It is either the nvidia proprietary driver if you're running FreeBSD (and only FreeBSD), or the freedesktop.org drm drivers ported over from linux if you're using the libre drivers.

    Furthermore, I will note that despite the BSD projects stating they use the 'BSD license', many of them do in fact have 'license encumbered code', including in the kernel. Said code ranged from CDDL, to Apache, to more questionable licenses. The one benefit linux has going right now is that *ALL* code in the kernel *HAS* to be GPLv2, or it can't be included. BSD on the other hand has *TONS* of code advertised as 'FEATURES' that isn't enabled by default because it would result in the kernel being non-redistributable.

    If you don't believe me, go read through the FreeBSD kernel source configuration file (I forget if GENERIC has it, or if you have to look through one of the other files for the 'FULL' configuration options. Regardless it has a number of warnings in it about exactly that.)

    Decide for yourself which is freer, or better helps you avoid running afoul of licensing missteps. At least the GPL is honest and straightforward about its requirements and responsibilities. The BSD kernels will some/all optional features enabled? Not so much.

    These statements exclude firmware binaries and their associated licenses. From there you have to jump to Linux-Libre or similiar to have NO potential submarine license issues.