From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263745AbTLJQef (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:34:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263751AbTLJQef (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:34:35 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:12723 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263745AbTLJQed (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:34:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:34:25 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Larry McVoy , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031210163425.GF6896@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031210153254.GC6896@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:21:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > There's a fundamental difference between "plugins" and "kernel modules": > intent. Which is? How is it that you can spend a page of text saying a judge doesn't care about technicalities and then base the rest of your argument on the distinction between a "plugin" and a "kernel module"? "Yes, your honor, I know you don't care about technicalities but let me explain how a kernel model, which is a wad of code that may be plugged into a program called the kernel and which provides some additional functionality or feature, is legally different than a plugin, which is a wad of code that may be plugged into some other program not called the kernel and which provides some additional functionality or feature. These are not all the same things, your honor, you see that, right?" Gimme a break, Linus. You can't have it both ways. > But when you have the GPL, and you have documented for years and years > that it is NOT a stable API, and that it is NOT a boundary for the license > and that you do NOT get an automatic waiver when you compile against this > boundary, then things are different. You need to reread your own postings on the topic over the years. There are documents all the web citing you as saying that binary drivers and modules are fine. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm