On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, watermodem wrote:
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > George Bonser writes:
> > > There is, of course, one basic problem with that argument. While you can say
> > > (and probably rightly so) that such a change would not be included in Linus'
> > > kernel, I think anyone is allowed to post a patch that might make it
> > > possible to add protocols as modules. If anyone chooses to use it is each
> > > individual's decision but you could not prevent ACME from creating a patch
> > > that allows protocol modules as long as they distributed the patch. Also, I
> > > know that you are allowed to distribute proprietary modules in binary form
> > > but are there any restrictions on what function these modules can perform?
> > > I don't remember seeing any such restrictions.
> >
> > People can post whatever patches which do whatever, sure.
> > But this isn't what matters.
> >
> > What matters is the API under which a binary-only module may interface
> > to the kernel. Linus specifies that only the module exports in his
> > tree fall into this API.
> >
> > As I stated in another email, the allowance of binary-only kernel
> > modules is a special exception to the licensing of the kernel made by
> > Linus. The GPL by itself, does not allow this at all.
> >
> > Later,
> > David S. Miller
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> David,
>
> What is your real problem with La Monte's Code.
> I don't buy your more "blessed than thou" argument.
> It is a typical response one normally sees in large
> organizations from folk with "empires" to protect.
> Coming from the "land of warring tribes" firm it is
> a attitude I have seen often. My response is take
> a vacation, chill out and reassess.
What words would you like to put in his mouth to replace those he used?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
