From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:44:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:44:44 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:17404 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:44:30 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <200106211814.f5LIEgK04880@snark.thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <200106211814.f5LIEgK04880@snark.thyrsus.com> To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: <17687.993206664@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org esr@snark.thyrsus.com said: > Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known Linux > company who was in a mild panic over recent arguments by Alan Cox and > David Miller. This company (not VA or Red Hat, BTW) fears that their > customers will run from Linux if they get the idea that linking > drivers to the kernel might force them open. I'm not going to join the amateur lawyers' society debate about this. But I will point out that I disagree with your intentions here. Personally, I don't _want_ authors or users of binary modules to be reassured. I want them to write open source code, or go away. And I don't think I'm alone in that. I think Linus said it best... On 7 Feb 1999, at 08:15:24 GMT, Linus Torvalds said: > Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, > it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I > want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a > cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. Large companies are now basing their design and purchasing choices on the availability of _real_ Linux support; not just binary-only drivers. Even if we _are_ primarily motivated by the desire to increase the market share of Linux (which is something I don't concede anyway), then we still don't lose much by letting binary-module people continue to sweat. -- dwmw2