Re: Out-of-tree kernel module udeb
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (2015-05-17):
>> On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 13:25 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> > My personal stance on kernel related things would be "upstream first".
>> > If it ain't going to be merged into mainline, or at least accepted as a
>> > patchset (like e.g. aufs3 or rt in wheezy) for src:linux, I'm not sure
>> > we want to support that.
>> >
>> > Cc-ing debian-kernel@ to see what they think.
>>
>> I strongly oppose adding OOT modules this way as a supposed workaround
>> for licence incompatibility.
>
> Just to clarify: I didn't mean to suggest doing so to work around any
> license issues. I was just trying to mention an alternate way for stuff
> that aren't (going to be) in mainline and that might still land in
> Debian kernels.
>
Build the module in the same source tree of Linux kernel (including
patch at build time) is not a
feasible option for ZoL because of the potential of licensing
incompatibility, that is to say we are risk to combine CDDL work into
GPL one. The only safe option is to build the module from another
source package and eliminate the possibility of building that module
into a monolithic kernel binary.
Thanks,
Aron
Reply to: