[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,

Other related posts: