Re: [PATCH] doc:process: remove note from 'stable api nonsense'

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:14:00AM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 2:43:38 AM CET Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:58:04 +0100
> > 
> > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> wrote:
> > > The link referred by the note can't be retrieved: this patch just
> > > remove that old note.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > b/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst index
> > > 24f5aeecee91..57d95a49c096 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > @@ -171,8 +171,7 @@ is also a rough job.
> > > 
> > >  Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we
> > >  are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't fall
> > > 
> > > -under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech
> > > -<insert link to leech comment from Andrew and Linus here>.)  If your
> > > +under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech).  If
> > > your> 
> > >  driver is in the tree, and a kernel interface changes, it will be fixed
> > >  up by the person who did the kernel change in the first place.  This
> > >  ensures that your driver is always buildable, and works over time, with
> > 
> > I've applied this.  I do wonder if the "you leech" should maybe come out
> > too, though.  I don't think that parasitic worms are a protected class
> > under the CoC, but they might still suffer emotionally from being
> > compared to the purveyors of proprietary modules...
> 
> I agree, do you want me to change the patch?

I would leave it as-is for now please.  When this was written, there was
a lot of discussion about closed source modules, and how the companies
that created them were leeches on our development community.  No one
disagreed with that statement, and a number of companies privately
agreed with us.

That still has not changed.

So I would like to see this remain.

thanks,

greg k-h