Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Ingo Molnar
2003-12-11T14:48:59Z

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> > > Not only that, I think the judge would have something to say about the
> > > fact that the modules interface is delibrately changed all the time
> > > with stated intent of breaking binary drivers.
> >
> > Where do you people _find_ these ideas?
>
> Oh, I don't know, years of reading this list maybe? Come on, Linus, do
> you really need me to go surfing around to find all the postings to the
> list where people were saying that's why change is good? I *know* you
> have said it. Don't play dumb, you have and you know it.

i challenge you to find such posts. What maybe might have happened is that
someone said "dont change this, it changes the module API" then someone
else said "that is not a good reason at all" - which is a perfectly
correct position. Maybe sometimes an interface was changed (or even
removed) because modules used it in a really unsafe way that lead to many
bogus bugreports and stability problems. I cant remember any instance of
pure "hey, lets change this function for fun and for breaking binary
modules".

i've been around here for a long time too and i find your accusation
insulting.

and even if someone did do something deliberately, it would be completely
legal, in fact, an action expressly protected by law. It is a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work.
Deactivating an effective technological measure is against 17 USC 1201.
(the DMCA) Believe me, most kernel copyright holders are _a lot_ less anal
about their rights than they could be. Every time Congress makes copyright
laws stronger for Disney & co, the kernel copyright gets stronger too.

Ingo