From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5320 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 13:13:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5312 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 13:13:38 -0000 From: Mark Salter To: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: drivers with proprietary code Message-Id: <20030402131333.0427E7884A@deneb.localdomain> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:13:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 I'm working on a board that has proprietary network hardware. The CPU contains dedicated "network engines" that require binary-only microcode to run. The interface between this microcode and the CPU core is provided by a proprietary library which is available in source form but under a license that requires permission for use and distribution. I have written an eCos driver which incorporates parts of this library to support the builtin ethernet ports in RedBoot. I'd like to get a sense of how folks feel about this sort of thing. Its clear to me that such code goes against the tenets of s.r.c, so I don't see this driver ever being hosted there. I think in this case the board manufacturer should supply the driver as a .epk file. So, I'm thinking that a link from the board's info page on s.r.c to the board maker's site along with some instructions on building and using the driver would be okay. What to others think? --Mark