Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Tim Hockin
2004-04-27T23:05:56Z

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:59:23AM +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
> look i have made complaints about gcc-3.x some time ago, on the gcc
> mailinglist. Also there they put my opinions aside, with arguments
> like any powerfull feature can be used in a bad and in a good way.
> The powerfull feature here is the C99 coding style, which allows for
> unnamed and anonymous structures and unions. Don't kill our C99 cause it
> can do bad things. Of course not.

> If every major hardware vendor (like e.g. Adaptec, LSI Logic) will change
> its policy, to implement its drivers as semi- binary only kernel modules, like
> Promise did with its FastTrak line of controllers, like in the example above,
> the Open Source lable of the linux kernel can be placed into the computer
> museum. Isn't that exactly what a certain Redmond software company wants
> to achieve?

What the hell do these two paragraphs have to do with each other?