Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table

[watermodem <aquamodem@ameritech.net>]

"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
> davem@redhat.com

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.

Watermodem 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/