[openbeos] Re: Using GPL-ed sources as the reference
- From: Siarzhuk Zharski <zharik@xxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:08:03 +0200
Hallo, Axel,
Thanks for your answers.
BTW, another question: during my working on that USB stuff
(serial(class
2) and mass-storage(class 8)) I have seen "two ways of things
implementing". Both serial and storage drivers in Linux support not
only
standard devices but many other ones with vendor-specific protocols.
For
example serial driver has support for standard ACM devices, FTDI
USB-serial chips, Prolific chips etc. The same situation with mass
storages. In opposition to this, FreeBSD sources contain only support
for standard classes. Other devices supported (if supported) as
separate
drivers. And ...... what is "the OBOS way"? Is that some kind of
"ideological" question? Or the question of The Purity? I just wonder
about this. =-)
I'd say this would be the developer's decision :-)
For example, the BeOS IDE driver contains code for all devices in one
driver. I personally don't like this, and I would prefer the FreeBSD
way of doing. But if that way would cause any disadvantages on the
users side (i.e. manual configuration), I probably wouldn't do it.
It's also the question of how much code is shared. If there is only a
small bunch of code necessary for every device, it might be
unreasonably to split the driver into several ones.
IMO more than 80% of code will be duplicated in case of separate
implementations. =-( If you look into my CVS repository:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/sis4be/usb_scsi/ - everything but
the proto_bulk.* and proto_cbi.* files is shareable code. I've developed
this with expandability in mind. =-)
PS: Axel, do you remember our private e-mail discussion about
donating
my drivers to OBOS some month ago? You still can come to me and get
it. =-)
Thanks :)
What drivers from yours are compatible with out license, i.e. not GPLd?
That was an original question. =-)) All my work is "compatible" in this
meaning. =-) All drivers are under BSD/MIT license. I don't used GPLed
sources.
Some words about my projects. You can see them all in my CVS repository
- usb_serial: (http://www.bebits.com/app/3433)
the implementation of standard (USB class 2) CDC ACM compatible
communication devices. Also supports FTDI-base and Prolific-base
USB-RS232 adapters. Works perfect for me. And there are no problem
reports from users too. =-) Note that it requires and heavily uses "tty"
module for implementing serial port. Do you have plans to recreate this
[absolutely undocumented] module in OBOS too? As far as I know all those
serial port-like devices (pty, zz, ltmodem, pctel) uses this "tty"
module. =-|
- usb_scsi:
the implementation of standard (USB class 8) mass storage devices. I
have performed some "close testing" and there are many success stories
about it in my e-mail inbox. Both bulk-only and CB[I] protocols are
implemented. I'm going to publish it on BeBits.com ASAP...
- sis7018:
see below. =-)
And what about that sync bug in the SiS 7018 driver? (couldn't resist
to ask) :-)
Yes. I understand you. =-) I'm going to rewrite this one. It was my
first attempt in BeOS kernel space. =-) Now I can do the same things in
more nice way. =-))
To tell you truth, I'm waiting for OBOS MediaKit to make my driver for
it. Sorry, but I don't keep track the OBOS MediaKit progressing till
now: Is it possible to use it at the moment and write drivers for it? =-)
Well. The [draft of my] final decision: =-) I'm agree to "participate"
in OBOS development by donating my code, further supporting it, adapting
to OBOS USB stack etc... Unfortunately, I can give guaranties for
supporting and developing _only_ my modules and helping in fixing
possible related problems in other parts of system if its depend on my
modules.
In case if this "restriction" is not very significant for OBOS Team -
I'll be glad to add prefix "(open)BeOS" to my driver descriptions. =-)))
Kind Regards,
S.Zharski.
Other related posts:
