Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)

[Paul Jakma]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:

> Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would
> make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly.
> No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no
> reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary
> modules. The GPL allows that, right? 

no gpl definitely does not alow binary modules.

afaik linus allows binary modules in most cases.

> So any developer of binary-only
> extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I
> don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal
> sound card drivers, etc.
> 
> I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything,
> but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use
> Linux to solve their problems.
> -

--paulj

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/